Loading...
BCC Minutes 02/07/1995 RREGULAR HEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1995, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:08 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members ALSO PRESENT: present: CHAIRPERSON: VICE-CHAIRMAN: Bettye J. Hatthews John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie Timothy L. Hancock W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager Ken Cuyler, County Attorney CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll call to order the board of county commission meeting for Tuesday, February the 7th. Mr. Dotrill, would you lead us in an invocation and pledge. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks this morning, as -- as always, for the wonderful quality of life and the wonderful weather that we have enjoyed recently. Father, we give thanks especially during this week of the golf tournament and be able to highlight our community to the entire nation. We give thanks for the wonderful weather and the spirit that has been in our community over the past week. Father, it's always our prayer that you guide the deliberations and the individual and collective decisions of our elected leaders as they make the important business decisions for this community. We give thanks for the many people who do choose to participate in the government in Collier County. Thanks also for the hard work of our support and professional staff. And we'd ask that you bless our time here together today. And we pray these things in Your Son's holy name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2A AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hr. Dorrill, we have some changes to the agenda? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. Good morning, Ms. Matthews, Commissioners. We have two add-on items this morning. The first one is 9-B which will be under the county attorney's report following up on previous board action as it pertains to resolutions appointing liaisons between the Board of County Commissioners and a number of other local and state units of government. That will be 9-B. We have an add-on item, 8-A-l, under community development for a routine facilities acceptance agreement in this case as it pertains to a master water meter. It otherwise meets all of the requirements, and it has been our policy to do this in order to accommodate closings in this case of units that had previously been scheduled. I have a request to continue 7-B under public petitions for two weeks until your next public petition meeting, a request by Jack Conroy regarding a utility sewer assessment on a piece of property in East Naples. A request to withdraw item 16-C-2 on the consent agenda under public services as it pertains to a social services contract between the board and Kelly Assisted Living. I have one item that is on the consent agenda. We're asking that it be moved to the regular agenda and discussed under item 8-A-2. It was 16-A-9 under community development and is that proposed executive summary and resolution as it concerns the EAR report and the citizens advisory panel that is to be created as part of that. 16-A-9 is moving and will become 8-A-2. And that's all that I have this morning. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Norris, are there changes? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Mr. -- Commissioner No further changes. Commissioner Hancock? None. Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: None. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to pull item 16-G-1 from the consent agenda. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 16-G-l? MR. DORRILL: 16-G-1 will become 8-G-2. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 8-G-27 MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And I would like to pull -- I'm sorry. Is that all, Mr. Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just the one? I'd like to pull 16-H-9. MR. DORRILL: H-9 will become 8-H-5. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I guess with that do we have a motion for the agenda and the consent agenda? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So moved. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion by Commissioner Constantine, a second by Commissioner Hancock to approve the agenda and the consent agenda. Call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. Item #3 MINUTES OF JANUARY 3, 1995 REGULAR MEETING, JANUARY 10, 1995 REGULAR MEETING; JANUARY 12, 1995 JOINT COLLIER/LEE WORKSHOP; AND JANUARY 17, 1995 REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Chairman, I make a move -- I make a motion that we approve the minutes of the January 3, January 10, January 17 regular meeting, and the January 12 joint workshop. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion by Commissioner Norris and a second by Commissioner Hancock to approve a series of minutes. Is there any discussion on the motion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. Item #4A1 PROCLAivLATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 12 THROUGH FEBRUARY 18 AS COLLIER HARVEST WEEK - ADOPTED First item on the -- next item is -- I think it's proclamations. I've lost my first page. Yes, Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. We have a -- a proclamation for Collier Harvest Week if Bert Paradis or Paradis -- which way? First way or second way? Is it Paradis? Paradis? MR. PARADIS: Commissioner, Bert Paradis. This is John Rigger (phonetic). COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I can, if you'll face -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie is going to read the proclamation and then -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you'd like to face the camera so you can be seen at home while I read this. MR. PARADIS: All right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Face the music there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Face the music. That's right. This is a proclamation by the Board of County Commissioners. Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners recognizes the goals of Collier Harvest, a chapter of U.S.A. Harvest, in its efforts to feed the hungry through volunteer efforts and in-kind donations from local markets, restaurants, bakeries, and caterers; and whereas Collier County is fortunate to have numerous individuals and organizations who give generously of their time and excess food at no cost to the hungry of Collier County to support Collier Harvest; and whereas the Board of County Commissioners lends support and encouragement to all Collier County citizens interested in the community effort to eradicate hunger in Collier County; and whereas the Board of County Commissioners recognizes the positive effects of its citizens' participation in Collier Harvest in helping to fight hunger and promoting community support of Collier Harvest. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of February 12 through 18, 1995, be designated as Collier Harvest Week. So moved. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to declare the proclamation. Is there any discussion on the motion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, proclamation's declared. MR. PARADIS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If you have something to say about -- MR. PARADIS: Without your help it wouldn't have been possible. You know that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I know. Long Shore's very active in this. I'm -- I'm well aware of that. If you have something to say about Collier Harvest Week and tell us what you're going to be doing -- MR. PARADIS: John, go ahead. We can come over here and say something. First of all, thank you very much for making Valentine week our week. We'd like to do that every year. This is our third year. And what we'd like to talk about is Collier Harvest does all this without raising money. We feed the hungry of Collier County with surplus food that we pick up at the public markets and other locations in Collier County and deliver to the different missions and soup kitchens. And Mrs. Skinner gives us a list of our challenges for the year, and Hartha tells us what -- where the needy are and where we need to go, and we follow her instructions, and then we pick up some other agencies along the way. But it's been a lot of fun, and we need more volunteers, especially in the summertime. In the past three years we've delivered over 250 tons of food without cost to the needy of Collier County. And we thank you for your proclamation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. RIGGER: I must say that we're delivering approximately 25,000 pounds of food per month to 26 different agencies at the present time with about 80 volunteers. In the summer the need increases, and we drop to 25 volunteers. As Bert said, we need volunteers, especially in the summer. That's when I'm here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If I could add a note to those who -- who want -- who are questioning what the volunteers do and may want to volunteer, I've -- I've made this drive a few times myself. One day a week or one day every two weeks they coordinate it with -- pick up food from the Publix, Winn Dixie, Sam's, wherever they tell us to go. And we carry that food either to Immokalee or to some other shelter and so forth where the pantry services or soup kitchens can feed the poor with it. It's -- it's a great -- great program. I've enjoyed being -- being a part of it. Item #4A2 PROCLAMATION HONORING MR. RUSSELL BUDD AS THE "1994 BUILDER OF THE YEAR" - ADOPTED Next proclamation, Mr. -- Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. It's my pleasure to introduce to everyone Mr. Russell Budd if you would come up, please. We have a proclamation honoring Mr. Budd as the 1994 Builder of the Year. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's Commissioner Budd. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd ask you to take the standard position and face all the public. Whereas, the Collier Building Industry Association honors a builder of the year for achievements in the building industry, promoting quality construction and a positive image in the community; and whereas, Russell Budd of Distinctive Homes has distinguished himself as an outstanding contractor in Collier County for 12 years providing quality and value to his customers; and whereas, Russell Budd has contributed to the community through service in civic associations, public school system, the Boy Scouts, his church, and numerous professional and business-related organizations; and whereas, Russell Budd currently serves on the Collier County Planning Commission and as chairman of the Golden Gate Fire Commission; and whereas, the Collier County Building Industry Association at a commemorative celebration on January 10, 1995, bestowed the honor of 1994 Builder of the Year on Russell Budd; and whereas, the Board of County Commissioners in Collier County recognizes Russell Budd for his outstanding achievements in the building industry and as a leader in the community. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Russell Budd be designated as 1994 Builder of the Year. Done and ordered this 7th day of February, 1995, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Bettye J. Matthews, Chairman. I'd like to make a motion that we accept this proclamation. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to accept the proclamation for builder of the year. Is there discussion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There's no one. Proclamation is accepted. MR. BUDD: If I can just say one thing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You sure can. MR. BUDD: Commissioners, I'd like to thank you for the honor. But most of all, I'd like to thank you for the work you've done as our county commission and will continue to do to make this a community where a builder can be honored which I appreciate very much and that I hope that more people can recognize that builders aren't always the bad guys and that we do really just try to make a living and to provide a home that people can live in and enjoy. So thank you very much, and thank you for the job you're doing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Item #4B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED Next item on the agenda is service awards. We have two this morning: One for ten years, EHS department, Donald Eckert. Is he here? MR. DORRILL: He is. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How are you doing? Thank you very much for your service. Ten years. Congratulations. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Congratulations. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Congratulations, Mr. Eckert. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Congratulations. MR. ECKERT: Neil. MR. DORRILL: John, well done. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Our second one is for 15 years, Mary Jo Thurston with utilities, finance. Certificate and your pin, and I thank you very much. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Congratulations. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Congratulations. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: As we move on with the agenda -- MR. DORRILL: Miss Thurston came to work here when she was ten years old. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Obviously. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Scoring the big points over there, aren't you, Mr. Dotrill? Item #5 BUDGET AMENDHENT BA 95-137 - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hr. Smykowski, budget amendments. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Good morning. For the record, Michael Smykowski, acting budget director. There's one budget amendment in the budget amendment report this morning that requires your approval. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Move for approval. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion by Commissioner Norris, a second by Commissioner Hancock to approve the budget amendments. Is there any discussion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? I didn't hear all the ayes. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I ayed. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There appear to be no no's. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I haven't -- I don't think I heard all the ayes. Motion passes -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- five to zero. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let it also be shown that Commissioner Matthews got your name right the first name today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: First time today. I did it right the last time. Moving onto the county manager's report -- that's where we are, isn't it? Item #7A LISA S. PAUL, PROPERTY MANAGER, EZON REGARDING HANDBILL DISTRIBUTION ORDINANCE - STAFF TO RESEARCH THE ISSUE AND BRING BACK IN 30 DAYS COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Public petitions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry, public petitions. 7-A, Lisa S. Paul, property manager from -- is that EZON? MS. PAUL: EZON. Good morning. Hi. I am here to represent many local businesses in Collier County. I'm here as a shopping center manager and as a citizen of Collier County who wants to see the county prohibit the distribution of commercial and non-commercial handbills in public and private places. Over the years many businesses have contacted county officials to inquire as to the legality of handbill distribution. Those businesses have been disturbed by the paper blitz they have witnessed in shopping center, office, and other public parking lots. Paper jammed on to every car window and attached directly to the buildings has irritated many. Many customers are irritated, and they pay no attention to the information obtained on the paper. But they emphatically remove the paper, crumble it, throw it on the ground, or toss it in their car never to be read. Customers are disgusted by this cheap advertising and are angered at the massive paper settling along parking curbs and in the landscaping. Most businesses within an office building or shopping center are proud of the clean exterior of their place of employment. As a property manager, I know the many problems associated with this type of advertising. I have in my career called many businesses that blitz a parking lot. I have notified them that they will pay for the extra clean-up costs I've had to incur because of their many flyers that get tossed by the wayside. On rainy or windy days, the clean-up is even worse. With so many other advertising medias available, this method is by far the cheapest and crudest for any business. We should prohibit this type of free advertising. It truly does not add to the beauty of Collier County. Distributing, placing, depositing, throwing or casting any commercial or non-commercial handbill should be prohibited in Collier County. The city of Naples has such an ordinance on their books. However, they give a business permission to distribute handbills by purchasing a permit first and no penalty for violators. This makes the ordinance very difficult to enforce. We would like to see no permit given and a fine of $500 if a business is caught violating an ordinance. Or if staff recommends the granting of a permit, we suggest a fee of $500. The object is to deter a business from advertising by hit-and-run tactics. I did write a letter and also attach what the city currently has on their books, and I think -- I think it's fine. It defines what I'm trying to say about handbills. It pretty much covers commercial and non-commercial handbills and the definition of private places and public places. And I really think the public would like to see that eliminated from parking lots and shopping center areas. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you, Miss -- Miss Paul. Is there comment on the board as to what we might want to do with this? Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand the concern about litter. However, I've got to wonder if, Mr. Cuyler, you can help me if there's a constitutional issue in completely prohibiting the distribution of handbills with no method in which to do that. It seems like a free speech issue. I don't argue with the litter part of it at all. HS. PAUL: No, I expected that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I've got to wonder if we're not getting a little shaky there if we don't provide some way to do that. HR. CUYLER: I had a conversation with -- a brief conversation with Miss Paul. I told her that we weren't going to get into any serious research on this unless the board was inclined to go forward as with our usual public petitions, and we'll report back to the board. But the answer to your question is yes, it has free speech implications, first amendment implications. And obviously there's going to be constraints on what you can do. But just exactly how we would handle it if you're inclined to go forward, I would have to bring that to you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This may be a bit of a naive question, but is it not illegal for someone to come up and lift the windshield wiper of my car and shove something underneath it? It's not their property. MR. CUYLER: Technically probably yes, but obviously it happens all the time. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I'm asking is, you know, other than the litter question and so forth, I mean, I just personally find it offensive. If there's a way that we can regulate it in some form, I would like to see us do that. MS. PAUL: It also really causes damage. They go -- they can place them anywhere on the building or anything, and they tape it on there. And if you take it off, half the stucco comes off. And there's very crude methods. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: These are generally 10- and 12-year-old kids, too, that are getting paid by the stack -- HS. PAUL: Exactly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to deliver these, and they generally don't have the appreciation for private property that maybe an adult or someone who owns a car would. You know, I don't think there's a rampant windshield wiper breaking going on out there, but the bottom line is it seems offensive, and I'd like to find a way to do something about it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Clark? MR. CLARK: Excuse me. For the record, Dick Clark, acting community development division administrator. There -- there may be -- the board may wish to consider a distinction on the handbills. Handbills handed to a person, the county attorney's office probably would agree, is free speech. Placing signs somewhere requires a permit. Free speech between people is, in fact, speech. I'm not sure that placing handbills on a vehicle -- I think -- in my opinion from the enforcement viewpoint, there's a distinct difference between speaking to a person, communicating and leaving items -- there may be a distinct difference there. And maybe you want to consider that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hiss Chairman, I'll -- I'll make a motion that we direct our county attorney to research the issue and bring it back to us on some future meeting so that we can get into a deeper discussion of the issue. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I will second that motion. Do we want to put a time frame on that, Excuse me? Do you want to put a time frame on that? Well, I don't think the world's going to collapse if we don't get it done in the next two weeks. So, Mr. Cuyler, what would be reasonable? MR. CUYLER: Thirty days would be fine for that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thirty days would be fine? MS. PAUL: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we've gone without it for 20 years, so 30 days probably isn't -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You look crest fallen. MS. PAUL: Well, season's almost over. We'd like to clean it up before then, but thank you. I appreciate that. MR. CUYLER: Just so Miss Paul's not surprised, that will be for my report back to the board. I won't be drafting anything until -- MS. PAUL: To me? MR. CUYLER: Until they take a look at it, and I'll let you see whatever we get to the board. MS. PAUL: Okay. Great. Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Don't forget there's -- when you enact an ordinance, there's also time constraints on advertising the meetings, and you have to hear it twice and all that business. MS. PAUL: You mean other people might show up and say something? They have an opportunity. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That free speech thing. MS. PAUL: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion on the floor and a second, a motion from Commissioner Norris, a second from Commissioner Hancock that would direct staff to investigate this and bring it back before this board within 30 days. Is there further discussion on it? There being none, I'll call the question. Those in favor please say aye. Those opposed? There being none I -- did you vote? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Going to have to be louder down here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Going to have to be louder. We can't hear it. I can't hear it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think we'll have to go to a roll call vote like the city. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Perhaps. That might not be a bad way to do it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Next item, please. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion passes five-zero. MS. PAUL: Great. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MS. PAUL: Thanks. MR. CUYLER: Sure. Item #7B JOHN T. CONTROY, JR. OF JOHN R. WOOD, INCL. REALTORS REGARDING A UTILITY SEWER ASSESSMENT - CONTINUED TO 2/21/95 Item #SA1 MASTER WATER HETER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR EGRET'S WALK AT PELICAN BAY - APPROVED AND LETTER OF CREDIT ACCEPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda, item 8-A-1. It's master water meter facilities acceptance, Egret's Walk. MR. DORRILL: This would otherwise be a consent agenda item that has been reviewed by the attorney, and there appears to be a hardship as it pertains to scheduling those closings. But if you have any questions -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excuse me. I need to abstain from the vote on this because I have a client relationship there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion by Commissioner Morris -- Norris, a second by Commissioner Hancock to approve the meter facilities acceptance. Is there further discussion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Is that a yes or a no? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: please -- please say no. He didn't say anything. I watched him. He didn't say anything. I watched him. He didn't say a word. He didn't say a word. All those opposed There being none, I presume there is a vote of four to zero in favor. Thank you. Item #8A2 Moved from Item #16A9 RESOLUTION 95-109 ESTABLISHING AN AD HOC COHMITTEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE PREPARATION OF THE SEVEN YEAR EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, THE GOLDEN GATE MASTER PALN, THE IHMOKALEE MASTER PLAN AND MAPS - ADOPTED MR. LITSINGER: Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chairman. This agenda item is the resolution to establish your citizens advisory committee for review of the evaluation and appraisal report as directed by your action of January 24. We had proposed to structure the committee very similar if not identical to the original citizens advisory committee as directed in your previous meeting that drafted the original growth management plan. I pretty much would open it up to your questions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are we in the right order? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This was an addition. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm confused. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This was an addition of 16-A-9 that came as 8-A-2. MR. LITSINGER: This is off your consent agenda. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: 16-A-9 was moved to 8-A-2. Is that correct, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I 'm sorry. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was lost too. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Who brought it out? Who wants to -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I brought it out, and the reason that I brought it out was the structure of the citizen advisory committee, the way that I read this is that the planning commission is going to -- going to recommend 20 -- MR. LITSINGER: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- members? MR. LITSINGER: Technically the -- any issue related to growth management plan, comprehensive planning, either preparation or review of a statutorily required nature, the Collier County Planning Commission is your local planning agency. And from a technical standpoint, they prepare the report and present it to you with staff and their own recommendations. So it's a process and protocol that we would submit all the applicants to the planning commission. They would make recommendations to this board which the board could take it under advisement in appointing members to the citizens advisory committee. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there any -- are there questions from the -- from the board on this? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I just have one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Will -- will the county commission have any input on what the meeting schedule is like or how much public participation there is? I'd like to encourage as much public participation as possible in the process, and I think that that's how we came to -- to -- to this decision to go with a full fledged advisory committee. MR. LITSINGER: Yes, ma'am. The first step, of course, will be to select the committee and have them elect officers and so forth and hold our first kick-off meeting to identify the process at hand. And I expect that they will proceed under their own initiative and that they would, of course, come periodically to the board to receive direction. Of course, you'll be hearing from staff on various aspects of the preparation of this report as we proceed. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of course, this is my first time to go through this, Mr. Litsinger, but I was surprised that there wasn't some sort of a schedule or something set out in the resolution. Is that something the committee themselves will develop? MR. LITSINGER: Yes, ma'am. We don't particularly want to give the committee direction other than to give them the general time frames and to tell them what we will provide the committee. We believe it's the committee's prerogatives to set their own work schedule within the boundaries that we need to accomplish this effort. If you would like to proceed in a different manner, we can add some language. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd just like to know what their work schedule is once it's established and then maybe have some input. You know, we could encourage them to meet more often or to offer more opportunities for public participation if we think that's necessary. MR. LITSINGER: Perhaps we can bring an agenda item back to you after the committee is established which, of course, you will have a hand in, major hand in appointing the committee and report to you either from the staff's perspective or by the committee representative itself of its work plan and progress reports and so forth. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, do we have speakers? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am, you have two. Miss Straton, following her Ms. Slebodnik if I have that right. MS. STRATON: Good morning. I'm here as a representative of the HPO citizens advisory committee. We met on Friday at one of our regular scheduled meetings. And the HPO citizen advisory committee has been very actively involved in several processes involving public participation. In fact, we have been mandated to come up with a public participation process. We've been working on traffic calming issues. We had enthusiastically looked forward to being involved in the EAR process, specifically in the CIE as it relates to transportation issues and mass transit, both of which are things that this CAC does on a regular basis. Concern was expressed that the new citizen advisory committee under the growth management plan -- we've learned a lot from the process we've gone through of what it takes to get the public involved and working very hard to make sure that the public participates. The concern that was expressed was that we would hope that this commission would direct the -- the CAC and the planning commission as it selects members to have people whose basic thrust is to try to get as much participation from the public as possible and not to be in a position where they necessarily feel that it's their job to dominate the process. And we were also quite concerned about the need to early on establish a linkage between the visioning process that's underway here in Collier County and the EAR. I think Jeff Perry in a memo to Commissioner Matthews said it the best way. It said in addition, it was the expression of the CAC that the growth management plan CAC should from the outset work to establish a linkage between the EAR process and the various visioning experiences going on throughout our community. Such a linkage is imperative to ensure a strong public percep -- perspective in the EAR process as well as the growth management plan amendments that will follow. The -- the resolution that was drafted is excellent. It covers all of the points. However, everything is subject to interpretation. And we wanted to try to early on in the process have this commission establish that direction in terms of soliciting public participation. And in those committees -- I know when this first came up the idea was some of the advisory boards were not formulated with the idea of being involved with the growth management plan. However, there are some advisory boards who are performing that function or who could easily perform that function. And I would encourage the commission to direct the -- this CAC to allow those advisory boards that want to participate in the process to be allowed that latitude. This resolution says that the planning commission decides whether there will be subcommittees. So we would hope that you would provide direction to them that the CAC of the HPO could be involved with those elements. Perhaps the Collier Airport Authority would like to be involved with the aviation element. Perhaps the parks and rec. committee would like to be a subcommittee on the recreation and open space. So -- and that's a way of broadening the public participation process, only bringing into play those advisory boards that want to participate and sending a very clear message that we want the community to -- to participate in this as much as possible. The Golden Gate Advisory Committee is probably a logical one to say we would like to be a subcommittee of the Golden Gate master plan. The solid waste element, it would be awful if -- after your meeting tonight if the solid waste element of the master plan was not opened up to as much public participation as possible because of the message it could send to the public. So that was the concern. We have found that you've got to work real hard to get the public involved, but it has tremendous pay-off. And we just wanted to -- to say we're willing to do what we can in mass transit and transportation. And perhaps there are other advisory boards that could complement this ad hoc group. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock, did you have a question? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually what you're asking for is the exact lines that we had requested which was that we increase the public involvement in this process. And the reason that we did not mandate or require certain advisory boards to become a part of the process is simply because we wanted to give you the option. As a matter of fact, I think those were my exact words, was to give those advisory board members the option of participating as opposed to a mandate or requirement from this board. I felt that was inappropriate. So I'm not sure -- obviously there are some perfect fits from our advisory committees. I would like to see if not a member of the 20-member subcommittee that the subcommittee priorities be listed such that advisory committee members be given the first opportunity to serve on those. MS. STRATON: One of -- but perhaps the CAC instead of just having one member serve on that ad hoc unless -- I guess, you know, we have an ll-member board, 9-member board, and that provides you with a lot of input. So maybe what you're suggesting is that someone from that HPO CAC serve on the board but they're given the responsibility of using the CAC as a resource for them so that, you know, that person is trying to represent the concerns of that entire advisory board. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As you know, most work is done in subcommittees, and that's where I see the advisory committees being the focus. And with something like the CAC in itself could become a subcommittee, and that -- that's -- that's the direction I see happening that makes the most sense to me. I'm not sure how that we word that, but I think that this board expressed that desire the last time that we asked this to come back and that that hasn't changed. I'm not sure how to reword it to require that, but I think we have sufficient direction that that is the goal. MR. LITSINGER: Commissioner, if I might make a couple of suggestions, there are several ways you can go. As you know, our original proposal was to use the advisory committees and not the CAC. There are a couple of things that can happen, of course. When we place the advertisements, solicitation in the various newspapers -- the newspaper and we send it to the other groups, we will, of course, point out that being a member on any existing advisory committee does not preclude you from applying for membership on the CAC. Another step you could take -- and I'm not going to give you a recommendation one way or another -- you could put aside a certain number of the 25 appointments for appointments from each or several of the advisory committees. In other words, the CAC to the MPO could be allocated one appointment to the CAC. Another step which will be part of the staff's work plan which we will be sending out this week is we are very strongly going to encourage -- and I believe you have just even given stronger encouragement than I could -- that in the staff preparing its work products associated with preparing this report which they have to in turn turn over to the citizens advisory committee that they utilize their existing advisory boards and that the advisory boards play a part in the staff's work products. So I'm not suggesting that the CAC and I don't believe it would be a good idea to take the CAC which, of course, based on your appointments will most undoubtedly include many members from existing advisory boards when you make the appointments in the subcommittees and so forth. But I think that the staff does not intend to exclude its existing, as we called them in our last executive summary, up-and-running advisory committees in the preparation of their work products. We can give very specific direction in that area if you like. We have a process here that we're -- we're looking at about four months of preparation to prepare these reports. And I certainly would think there's plenty of time for staff to involve their advisory committees. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I as usual just have a real simplistic approach to this. I think that we need to have the CAC. It needs to be appointed exactly as you've laid it out in the resolution. I think that we need to be careful that the staff's work product is not what comes to the board, that the public's work product is what comes to the board as coordinated by the staff. And that's -- that's really critical to me. MR. LITSINGER: We've gotten that message very clearly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir, and that -- there's some real logical natural approaches: MPO for transportation, parks and rec. for parks and rec., just so that you tap in and offer each one of those existing committees the opportunity to provide input. It seems to me it's just that simple. We have a 20-member committee, and we offer existing committees the opportunity to review and provide input with the staff liaison if they'd like to. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. The -- the way that I felt the discussion was a couple weeks ago when we first handled this was that there would be a 25-member CAC that worked with our advisory boards, that worked with the Marco Island visioning process, that worked with the Greater Naples Civic Association visioning process, the EDC visioning that was done last year and -- and worked with all these subgroups and formulate the growth management plan amendments that address the EAR. That was what I thought we were headed for. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think -- in reading the staff report, I don't think that's changed. I think Miss Straton has asked for a clarification to make sure that there's an inclusion of those elements. And I think we have provided that for the record and -- and are strong that that be a requirement. Mr. Litsinger understands it. And like I said, in his executive summary, I don't see any variation from -- from the direction we gave him. But now we've offered a second clarification, so I think it's fairly clear that we're -- we're strong about it and it's gonna get done. MS. STRATON: And that was the only purpose is to -- to clarify that particular thing. And as I said, Mr. Litsinger did a good job with this, but it's always subject to interpretation. And I think that the message is very clear, and I think the community will benefit from that clarification. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Miss Straton. Do we have a second speaker? MR. DORRILL: We also had Miss Slebodnik, and I apologize if I mispronounce it. MS. SLEBODNIK: That's just fine. I'm Kathleen Slebodnik, president of the League of Women Voters of Collier County. And I just briefly wanted to reiterate our position hopefully as you have said that the public participates in this -- in this process. The growth management plan is very important to the county and, of course, to the future of Collier. And we have had many members who have participated in the previous evaluation plan seven years ago in some capacity or another as advisors or whatever. And we just ask that the meetings be -- how shall I say this? -- well publicized I guess where the meetings are going to occur so that we can attend them if we choose to and present positions if we have them as -- as league members. We ask that the public be encouraged to participate in these meetings. As you have said, I think this is going to be a public process and the public will be. We just want to go on record as saying that this is important to us and we are very interested in serving perhaps on the -- maybe a member of ours on the citizens advisory committee as a -- as the league is important -- as good government is important to us. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank -- thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Move for approval. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion to approve. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a second? We have a second. Is there further discussion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor please vote aye. All those opposed? There being none, motion is approved five-zero. Item #SD1 VILLAGE PRODUCTIONS OF GOODLAND, INC. TO HOLD A DEDICATION CEREMONY AND ACCEPT DONATIONS OF THE CEREMONY - APPROVED Next item on the agenda is item 8-D-1 to authorize Village Productions of Goodland Incorporated. This is the painting on the water tank? Is that where we're -- MR. NEWMAN: Yes, ma'am. For the record, Mike Newman, your county water director. What we bring before you this morning is one of those very, very nice community service type items that we don't get to bring too often. About a little over a year ago the board authorized staff to work with Village Productions of Goodland in their request to paint an environmental mural -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me, Mr. Newman. I just -- I'm sorry to interrupt. But I'm wondering is there anyone on the board that can think of a reason why we would want to oppose this? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I would certainly make a motion to approve it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have one real quick question that -- that I'm sure Mr. Cuyler will appreciate. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Now wait a minute. Let me get this in order. Are you withdrawing your motion then until we get his question, or do you want to proceed? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Not at all. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right. We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: discussion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sure. I have a second. Is there Yes. Now you're on '- Okay. -- Commissioner Hancock. I just -- in reading the paper, again, great idea. I want to go ahead with it. But I mentioned -- I saw mention of people getting on ladders to put their hand prints up high. Are these people signing waivers? MR. NEWMAN: I have -- I have not seen that. I know there is a plan to do that, and I believe there's some members here this morning that may be able to address that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd just hate for somebody to get hurt. MR. NEWMAN: Yeah, I agree. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'm sure Mr. Cuyler shares that same concern. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Host of us would hate for them to sue us if they do get hurt. MR. CUYLER: Maybe Miss -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The waivers aren't going to keep them from falling. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Bruno is here on behalf of the Goodland association. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wasn't going to make that connection, Commissioner Mac'Kie, but since you have -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me, we have Miss Bruno here? MR. DORRILL: Miss Bruno's here I think primarily to thank you profusely for this, but perhaps she can help answer that question. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think Miss Bruno had volunteered to stand under the ladder and catch anybody that fell. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, I'm not looking for ways to shoot -- I just want to make sure that you're covered and we're covered and nothing bad comes of this. That's all. MS. BRUNO: Now what do you want to know? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I saw mention that people -- in order to get hand prints up around the top, they're going to have to climb up a ladder. And I'd hate to see somebody fall or anyone get hurt and the county gets sued and all that good stuff. Is -- I don't know. Can the county attorney provide you with some type of waiver or something? MS. BRUNO: Well, we've always had to sign waivers for anything we have done on that water tank. When we did welcome to Goodland, we signed waivers. When we did this mural, we signed waivers. But on this particular project -- you have to forgive me. I have a terrible cold. On this particular project we will have a sign up for those who want to participate, and it will be climbing that ladder at their own risk, you know. And we don't foresee any problems with it. MR. CUYLER: We'll provide Mike with something, and they can provide Betty with something. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good enough. That's all I wanted to know. MS. BRUNO: Thank you very much. MR. CUYLER: Because we have, as she mentioned, done that in the past. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Good enough. MS. BRUNO: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion by Commissioner Norris to approve and a second by Commissioner Constantine. Is there further discussion on the motion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? No opposition, motion passes five-zero. MS. BRUNO: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MS. BRUNO: I would like to -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I stopped by to see that on Sunday. MS. BRUNO: -- applaud you for this decision. I'm sure that it's a really monumental one for Collier County. But when you see the mural, you will understand that that too is monumental. It is an environmental statement. It is something we hope will take us into the 21st century with a little more thought to environment and animal species, especially the endangered and threatened. And that's what the whole idea is. And if you stood before that mural and looked at a particular species up there and closed your eyes and then opened them, you would think that you was right in their habitat. It looks so real. So we would like to invite the public, the commissioners, Mr. Dotrill, Mr. Cuyler, of course, our precious Mike Newman who's done all this work for us to participate -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let the record show that she said precious, not -- MS. BRUNO: Precious. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we have that put on the door of his office? MR. DORRILL: We've referred to him as a lot of things, but precious has never been one of them. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mike Precious Newman. MS. BRUNO: Is that not one of his -- MR. DORRILL: No, that's fine. That's fine. MS. BRUNO: But anyway, Mr. Newman and Commissioner Norris will be out there that day, and I thank the commissioners that I heard from prior to this. I'm sorry you're not going to be around and -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As are we. MR. BRUNO: But you can come put your print later. And pets can put their print up there also -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, climbing a ladder with a pet in your hand? MS. BRUNO: -- because they respect the environment. But with this donation, we hope to make a healthy contribution to the Friends of Collier Seminole State Park to those volunteers that are not funded by the state, and it will give them funds to work with, educational material, videos, provide maybe for markers on animals for tracking and different things like that in our southwest area, southwest Florida area. As fragile as our environment is, I -- I hope that everyone will respect this and understand why we -- we authorize the artist to do this because Village Productions did fund it for her. If you would like to ask them any questions, the president of Friends is here, Lou Stickles. And the artist, Bonnie Hauke, is here if you would like to ask them any questions at this time. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'd certainly just like to thank them. I stopped by there the day before yesterday and got a good close look at it, and it turned out beautiful. It's quite a -- quite a job. MS. BRUNO: It's just simply gorgeous. It really is. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As a member of the commission on behalf of the commission, I'd like to thank you all for putting that together. It came out great. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, thank you. MS. BRUNO: Thank you, John. We'll see you on Saturday -- hope we see everybody on Saturday, ten o'clock. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ten o'clock. MS. BRUNO: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. The next item on the agenda has a time certain for 6 p.m. Item #8G1 regarding the landfill will be heard at 6:00 P.M. Item #862 Moved from Item #16G1 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTHENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) TO PERFORM UNIQUE AND INNOVATIVE PROJECT ACTIVITIES IN COLLIER COUNTY - CONTINUED TO 2/14/95 COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 16-G-1 is now 8-G-2. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. 8-G-1 has a time certain for 6 p.m. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 8-G-1. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: 8-G-1. So we'll move on to 8-G-2. MR. DORRILL: I had one question -- excuse me -- on -- on the landfill item. I was advised this morning that Commissioner Norris is going to be out near the start of that item. And I just -- I wanted us to -- to recognize that, but I would hate for us to proceed too far into the evening. I need some idea as to when you were going to return. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: As -- as I discussed in the workshop last week, I -- I had already accepted a speaking engagement before this meeting was scheduled for 6 p.m., and it's at 7 p.m. I fully expect to be back before 8 p.m. If there's a vote to be taken, I -- I did ask the chairman last week if we could perhaps hold a recess until I got back in. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, will you be here at the beginning? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, yes, yeah. I'll -- I'll leave about seven. I'll be back before eight. MR. DORRILL: Thank you. I apologize. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. That's quite all right. So I would presume then there is agreement on the board that if we move toward a vote before Mr. Norris returns that we take a recess until he does return. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know. After hearing his opinion on Carl Loveday last week, I think maybe we should breeze right through without him but -- no, we should certainly wait. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, okay. So we're in agreement, Commissioner Norris, that if we come near to a vote within that short span of time we will take a recess. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And charge you for anything we eat in the mean time. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll bring a pizza. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you going to bring it back with you? We'll take a dinner break. Let's move on to item 8-G-2 which is approval of a contract with the Florida DEP to perform unique and innovative project activities. Mr. -- Commissioner Constantine, you moved this -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I pulled this off for a couple of reasons. Those words unique and innovative flagged me. But as I read through here, you may recall the questions we had last year on the funding of the hazardous waste disposal program. This seems to me -- and maybe staff can help me out -- but this seems to me spending $100,000 on -- if you all haven't read it, just take a quick peek. But spending $100,000 on this seems like finding a way to spend the money we've collected as opposed to the most effective way we can spend $100,000. Particularly after getting Mr. Smykowski's memo this past week, I think we're all fairly tight on spending dollars anyway. But after taking a look at the projection for the next couple of years, I am more than ever a little uptight about dropping money. And this seems like an awful expensive item; hundred thousand bucks to generate the word. I don't see it quantified how much of a problem is out there right now. I don't know how much of our population speaks only Spanish and speaks no English. I don't know any of that from this summary. MR. SMITH: Okay. For the record, my name's Ray Smith from pollution control department. The $50,000 matching grant that we'll be receiving is $50,000 that we'll be receiving from the state matching existing budget -- the existing budget, monies that are being spent anyway that have been approved by the board for this budget year. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just let me interrupt there. Just because it's budgeted doesn't mean you have to spend it. MR. SMITH: That's true. I agree. MR. DORRILL: But as distinguished from additional money or money out of his reserves which would be new money. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. I understand. But when you said money that's been budgeted that would be spent anyway, that's not necessarily the case. MR. SMITH: Well, primarily this money's going to be used to educate the residents of Collier County, both English and Spanish speaking, in proper waste minimization and proper disposal of those hazardous waste materials. And I think there's -- in my -- in appendix A identified 13.6 percent of the residents of Collier County are Hispanic-speaking residents. So our focus here is primarily that we've been educating in the English language and we would like to also focus on Spanish-speaking language also. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two questions. Where did you get that 13.6 percent? And are they bilingual or monolingual? MR. SMITH: That is Hispanic, and that thirteen six -- 13.6 percent was received from the growth management department. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So they're Hispanic, so we don't know if they speak Spanish or English. And I have -- I have friends of Hispanic descent who don't speak a lick of Spanish. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or who speak Spanish and a lot of English. MR. SMITH: These are Spanish -- through the consensus, my information I received is these are folks that speak Spanish. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Exclusively. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Only. Exclusively? MR. SMITH: I don't have that information available. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It looks to me like we're spending $50,000 of our own money to provide current instructions in Spanish. MR. SMITH: Not necessarily. Presently we send out newsletters. We put together brochures. We put together promotional through the media on hazardous waste collection, through amnesty days, et cetera. And we'll be also focusing not only in the English-speaking radio stations and newspapers, but we'll be also presenting that or promoting the collection on Spanish-speaking radio stations. We do this -- we do this promotion anyway, and this contract is going to also in addition to receiving funding for those promotional items on Spanish radio and TV or newspapers, but we're also going to be receiving monies back from what we do anyway regarding English-speaking radio stations. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And don't get me wrong. I don't have a problem with doing it in Spanish. It just seems like $100,000 is a lot of money for an advertising campaign. And, I mean, do we spend that much currently on advertising? MR. SMITH: Well, presently we have an amnesty day coming up in which we're going to be contracting through radio stations, and it's going through the newspaper. Wewre estimating that just on that one amnesty day collection which constitutes only two days out of the year itws going to cost approximately -- Iwm estimating about $4,000 in radio announcements including newspapers, et cetera, just to promote that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Those radio announcements arenwt considered public service announcements? MR. SMITH: We do go through the public service announcements which are free but in addition to that to promote the amnesty day and to have the residents become aware of the date of this collection that we do hit other media sources. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it just -- first of all, youlye said now that itls both English and Spanish, but thatls not what the executive summary says. I look in the first paragraph under consideration. And it says, the reduction is to be accomplished by providing the Spanish-speaking county residents bilingual information on how to minimize. And again, if therels a need out there, thatls fine. But to base the guess on how many people speak Spanish on our long range planning statistics for how many people of Hispanic descent live here I think is probably inaccurate. And I agree wholeheartedly with Commissioner Hancock that $100,000 is an awful lot to be doing that. The upscale -- and I mean the highest upscale -- communities that are marketing themselves, developing and marketing themselves, are spending $400,000 a year around the clock to try to sell million dollar residences. It seems like 25 percent of that to push two days of hazardous waste collection -- MR. SMITH: Well, one of the things that weill also be doing is hiring a temporary, part-time bilingual pollution control specialist. There are a number of businesses within our small quantity generator verification program that the owners of those businesses speak Spanish, especially in Immokalee area. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many businesses? MR. SMITH: I donlt have a number on that. But the 13.6 percent was concentrated in -- primarily in the Immokalee area. Now, in recent years welve had the collection located -- the amnesty day collection located here in the parking lot which -- which is quite a distance for the folks in Immokalee. We are also considering having an amnesty collection in Immokalee focused on presenting that information to the Immokalee residents on proper waste minimization and management along with collecting those hazardous wastes that their residents out there may have. And in addition to that, we have a collection for the small businesses in which they coordinate with the countyls hazardous waste transporter to have those materials collected at a fee, not that theyill pay the contractor. The county does not pay any fee on that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much are we paying that part-time person according to this? MR. SMITH: The part-time individual according to appendix A of the contract, page 4, will be paid approximately -- this states $13,500. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And thatls to make the two days a year more successful? MR. SMITH: No, thatls to -- thatls not only to make two days of the year more successful, but thatls to communicate to the business owners which is an existing program, the small quantity generator verification program, to be able to provide -- to translate our newsletters which are going out to speak with the business owners, to provide the residents through workshops, potential workshops, information on proper management. What I'm after primarily or what this -- what we're proposing is that it doesn't matter necessarily what language you speak. If you dump a hazardous material on a ground, everybody is impacted because the ground water may be potentially -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one more time. How many businesses is it we're dealing with? MR. SMITH: In -- on our existing assessment roll that we have for the small quantity generator program -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many businesses are we dealing specifically that speak Spanish, don't speak any English? MR. SMITH: I don't have any information. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think we have anywhere close to enough information to make a decision on this. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Norris, you had questions? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. Commissioner Constantine brought up the distinction between budgeted money and money that will or will not be spent. And I'm not sure that I had the answer to my satisfaction. This $50,000 that we have in our budget, is -- is that going to be spent in any case? MR. SMITH: That $50,000 is in our budget, is going to be spent on collections, education, et cetera, yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So -- MR. DORRILL: And we're getting credit for that against this grant from the state. MR. SMITH: Correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: That is, we're getting credit for the existing 50,000. MR. SMITH: So we've spent -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So it really doesn't -- so what I'm trying to find out is -- is -- is are we going to have to shift our $50,000 from what we intended to use it? We're going to use it for -- MR. SMITH: No. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- exactly what we intended to use it for all along. MR. SMITH: Exactly what we're planning on using it, and we're getting -- in essence we're receiving 50,000 from the state -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. MR. SMITH: -- for what we're going to be doing anyway. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. So no change -- MR. SMITH: No change. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- whether we approve or deny this as far as our operation -- MR. SMITH: No change. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- except that if we approve it we get 50,000 extra dollars from the state -- MR. SMITH: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: outlined here. MR. SMITH: Correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- that we use for this program that's Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie? Well, I just -- maybe having served on the board at the time that this budget item was adopted you're more comfortable with it. But I'm still not comfortable with it. I don't -- it doesn't carry any water with me that it's money from the state or money from the county. It's still tax money, and it's silly to spend it if we don't know what we're spending it on. I don't -- I won't be able to support it because I don't understand the program. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ditto. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Let me see if I understand it. We -- we have in our budget budgeted $50,000 to handle this program. MR. SMITH: We have in our budget monies that are available for the collection of household hazardous waste in the small quantity generator verification program. Yes, those monies already exist. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. SMITH: As I stated earlier, those monies are going to be spent in this direction anyway excluding it's not going to be in the Spanish-speaking format. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right. Now, my question is, with the $50,000 grant matching funds from the state, are we going to perform the same program we were going to do anyway, or are we going to enhance it? MR. SMITH: We are going to enhance it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To double what it was? MR. SMITH: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why do we need to do that if that's not what we were going to do? MR. SMITH: Well, primarily the funds we received right now, okay, are to -- for example, let me use an example here. We have an amnesty day collection out here in the parking lot. We are considering extending that collection throughout the county, for example, Immokalee, all right, in which the folks in Immokalee can commute to the collection center without driving with the hazardous materials loaded up in their van all the way up Immokalee Road to this site. It's -- it's a convenience for them, and it also provides some safety in the transportation of the hazardous materials they may have. In addition to that, during the small quantity generator verification program, we are going to have somebody that is bilingual that can inspect the businesses in the -- in bilingual situations and be able to provide information to the business owner on the best way to manage those materials. And at this particular point in time we do not have a bilingual within the department in which we have any questions conveyed to us regarding hazardous waste management. In the Spanish-speaking language, we can't communicate with them. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've got one more question. And what you're saying is that the program that we have currently budgeted at -- at $50,000 I presume does not include Spanish-speaking advertisements or media output; is that correct? MR. SMITH: Correct. At this time it does not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And it does not include a hazardous waste collection station in Immokalee or anywhere in that environment. MR. SMITH: At this time we are holding our annual collection out here at the county complex. And we are planning in the future, if the $50,000 is going to assist us, in promoting the collection out in Immokalee and arranging that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And if I lived by Everglades City or -- or by Chokoloskee, there is still no provision in that area either -- MR. SMITH: We can -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- for household hazardous waste. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For 50,000 bucks we can probably do that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For another 50,000. MR. SMITH: Not necessarily. We can evaluate that area and focus in on Everglades City also. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I guess that -- that I'm having a little bit of problem with the basic program in that rather -- rather than spread the program countywide we have concentrated it obviously where the population is, and I understand that. But -- but I'm -- I'm having -- I'm having trouble, too, with it so I guess -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me just ask one more question to Mr. Dotrill. These matching funds of $50,000 from the state that we get -- and -- and we've heard our staff tell us that our $50,000 will be spent whether or not we apply for the grant -- if we decline to take this grant, what then happens to that $50,0007 Does that return to the taxpayers? MR. DORRILL: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where does it go? MR. DORRILL: You're going to spend your money -- the money that was previously approved is in two programs. You have a household hazardous waste amnesty days, and I'll just say that at least half of the money in this program goes to support a contractor who hauls -- who receives, catalogs, and hauls the material to Alabama to have it disposed of at a hazardous waste landfill. That's done here in the Naples area. The other program is to enforce the small quantity generators hazardous waste requirements of the state, and you'll recall last year we funded that through a surcharge on occupational licenses that was wildly disliked. The commission said incorporate that into your budget this year. We will subsidize the requirements of the state to coordinate hazardous waste activities with small businessmen. So you have two programs. Combined cost of those two programs is $50,000 a year that benefits the Naples urban area. The nature of this proposal is to get credit for your 50,000 to receive an additional 50,000 from the DEP to establish essentially the same program in predominantly Immokalee and target Hispanic households and Hispanic-owned businesses because I -- I think it's safe to say they're otherwise not participating either from a business perspective or individual households. And that material is either being stockpiled at their business or their home, or it's being dumped in the landfill in Immokalee. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, thank you for that explanation. My point actually is that if we decline to take this $50,000, that $50,000 is not returned to the general taxpayer who put it in there to begin with. It's just some other county's going to take it and spend it on the same thing that we would otherwise have the opportunity to use it for here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I want to make two suggestions: One is to suggest that we need -- that we spend 50,000 right now in the urban area to serve 130,000, 140,000 people with this program, and then we need to match that exact same number of dollars to do that in an area that has how many people? Fifteen thousand? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fifteen to twenty thousand year-round, uh-huh. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- it seems a little odd. To suggest that we should hire a part-time person and implement a program when we don't know whether there's 3 businesses or 300 businesses doesn't make any sense to me. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Huh-uh. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And to say, well, the money's available. Somebody else will spend it if we don't so we should spend it doesn't make any sense to me. I think we should do a couple of things. We should turn down this item, and I think we should review the way the current program is set up with its $50,000 because for what's been described -- and perhaps there's more than what's been described today -- but what's been described today, $50,000 seems like an awful lot of money. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One thing has been pointed out to me that makes a lot of sense, and that is if we have hazardous materials and the folks holding those only speak Spanish, it's probably in all of our best interests to make sure they know how to get rid of it properly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have volunteers on the staff. I know we have a -- translation volunteers. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Exactly. That's what I'm saying. If we just shoot this thing down today and it goes away and never comes back, maybe there's a reduced form of the grant that gets done what we need to get done on a more specific scale without going for -- for everything when we don't really need it. So I guess I would like to have a little more information on this on what the real pros and cons are. Obviously this was pulled off the consent agenda, and none of us have had more than a grand total of scanning time in looking at it. And I guess I just see that as I'd rather not take a risk of having hazardous materials floating out there. If there's another way we can handle the language barrier, let's find a way to do that. Let's see what the funding is before we turn down the opportunity for grant money to fund that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't disagree with that. I would just say we need to have some statistics better than based on the Hispanic population here. We need to have some statistics based on how many businesses there actually are. And I think we can use our volunteer network rather than hire a thirteen and a half thousand dollar part-time person. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. Just before letting go of that, I'd like to make sure we have the other in our hand so that we can get it done. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just have one more comment on this. And this is when we were talking about the surcharge on the occupational license last year, correct me if I'm wrong, but -- and I might be. The -- the -- it seems to me that I remember hearing about a ad valorem tenth of a mill or .01 mill or something like that that was -- that was early on dedicated to the hazardous waste program; is that correct? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I remember that. MR. DORRILL: Historically it was, and then I'll say we probably levied occupational license surcharges in each of the last two years. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. MR. DORRILL: It was -- we did it for two years, and then we abandoned it after the second round. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And it was -- it was my understanding that last -- MR. DORRILL: The program has historically been funded in fund 114 which is the countywide pollution control fund. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. That's -- that's my question, countywide. We're collecting ad valorem taxes countywide, but we're only spending them in the urban area. And I've got some problems with that because the people in Chokoloskee, Plantation Island, Immokalee, all along the east part of the county, they pay this ad valorem tax as well, and they're getting no benefit from it. MR. YILMAZ: George Yilmaz for the record with pollution control. Number one, I have definite empathy. I've been in this business probably ten years, and I still don't understand hazardous waste laws and rules. They change faster than our ordinances, so indeed there is very compli -- it's a very complex, complicated, not-easy-to-understand set of laws that small businesses imposed upon. Now, I'd like to clarify four things that I have heard during the board discussion. Number one was do we have a problem? Yes, we have a problem. According to state data, about two-thirds of the ground water and surface water pollution is related to improper disposal of small quantity hazardous waste generators. And just to give you some visual explanation of that, one gallon of hazardous waste such as gasoline could contaminate one million gallon of ground water which is equivalent to one person's 13 years of water supply. So although it may appear to be innocent, we are dealing with something there threatening our future. Second issue was that where is this $50,000 coming from? It's the competitive matching fund. There were only eight county governments in state of Florida received this fund through competitive grant application format. So it wasn't fund that every county was designated to be given. We had to fight for it. And out of eight, only three counties received up to $50,000 that was allowed by the law, maximum amount of dollars for that grant. And Collier County is one out of three. we're talking about this board receiving a grant based on innovative approach in a business; out of all the counties like to get. Thirdly, as our manager indicated, there are two issues and two different funding sources, and I think there's a confusion there. Small quantity generators program is funded through fund 114 countywide program. However, this program deals with household collection and disposal of hazardous waste which was under solid waste department. Last year it was transferred to pollution control department and combined through efficiencies with SKG or CSKG program which is called conditional exempt generators. So basically the program's here designed to not only educate at least about 10,000 small businesses out there but also help them dispose of their hazardous waste cost effectively. The only gap in the program has been indeed we have 13 percent, maybe more, Spanish-speaking individuals out there we cannot reach as much as we like to. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How do you know it's 13 percent, maybe more? That's the crux of the question for me. I don't understand spending $50,000 when -- MR. YILHAZ: We're not spending $50,000 for Spanish-speaking businesses. We're simply saying that that was the core of innovative grant application. We simply indicated that we will try to reach Spanish-speaking businesses in Collier County. Through that core we were able to get $50,000 which mostly be utilized for collection, disposal of hazardous waste, but it is not only Spanish speaking but also English speaking. So it's the extension to our current program. And in terms of ad valorem tax impact is zero because this is a matching fund to current program that we have. MR. DORRILL: I have two notes on this. And then if there's a motion to continue, I -- I don't have a problem with that. You want to see an analysis of the current program cost, specifically where they're being spent like how much does the firm get to receive and haul this material to Alabama, what is the frequency of that, what are the associated costs? I know we have a trailer at the Naples landfill that will receive similar waste so that it does not get diverted down to the landfill. What costs have we spent on advertising, what are the current costs by cost center? Then the other note that I have is a little more definitive analysis of the impact on the core or target Hispanic businesses and population centers throughout the county. And those were the two things that I heard you say. If you've got anything else, I'll need to know that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's see. Mr. -- Commissioner Norris, you had a question or just a comment. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just a comment. I'd like for everyone on this board who's in favor of unfunded mandates please raise their hand. And then I'd like to point out that because of the regulatory basis of these programs, this is an unfunded mandate, and here's a chance to get some funds for it. So think that over, please. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: have something else? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: motion. Commissioner Mac'Kie, did you No. No, okay. I'd like to hear a COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to continue for two weeks. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Motion to continue for two weeks by Commissioner Constantine, a second by Commissioner Mac'Kie. Commissioner Norris, I understand what you're saying. And yes, I agree. But I guess my next question, Mr. -- MR. DORRILL: Smith. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- Smith, if we bring this back in two weeks, are we going to lose the grant if we don't act on it today? MR. SMITH: No, we will not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. That answers my problem. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One item before we vote, just a thought. You talk about unfunded mandates. Whether we do this or not, we end up spending 50,000 bucks. So this has nothing to do with unfunded mandates. It's still going to cost the county the same amount of money. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes to continue this item for two weeks. Take a break? Let's take a break. It's -- for ten minutes. I can't see the time. There's a glare. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's 10:25. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 10:257 Let's take a break until twenty minutes of. (A short break was held.) Item #SH1 PERMANENT FINANCING OPTION FOR 800 MHZ SYSTEM - CONTINUED TO 2/14/95 Item #8H2 DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION OF FY-96 BUDGET POLICY - BUDGET CLASSIFICATIONS APPROVED; PRESENT POLICY RE CONTRACT AGENCIES NOT BE TO ALTERED; CONTRACT AGENCIES THAT CAN IDENTIFY AVOIDED COSTS ENCOURAGED TO PRESENT PROPOSALS TO STAFF; PAY STRUCTURE TENTATIVELY SET FOR 3.5e COLA AND le MERIT; BUDGET WORKSHOPS SCHEDULED BEGINNING THE WEEKS OF 3/10/95; ATTRITION FACTOR TO BE SET AT 3e TENTATIVELY CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the board of county commission meeting for February 7. Next item on the agenda is item 8-H-2, a discussion and adoption of the FY '96 budget policy. MR. DORRILL: Madam Chairman, this has become the annual point at which time the board receives the proposed fiscal and budget policy. I will tell you that we have shared this with all of the constitutional officers in advance of the meeting. And today we did receive some -- one written response in return to our request for -- for input. This year we went a step beyond the one year, and that's -- I had asked -- and Mr. Smykowski's done an excellent job at projecting the county's expenses and revenues. And this is one of those rare occasions that if -- if the board didn't hear many things that I say this year, this is one of those occasions where we -- we need you to focus in on where the expense and revenue projections are headed in this county. I hate to use the word deficit spending. Deficit, as Senator Sasser from Tennessee used to say -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's not a nice word in Collier County. MR. DORRILL: It's not. But in net terms that is what will happen as a result of a couple of factors, and I have asked Hike and he's focused in on the three primary ad valorem funds. They include the general fund, the unincorporated area general fund, and the pollution control fund. And there are a number of reasons why expenses and revenues are going to be headed in opposite directions of each other, all having to do with prior board action or policy decisions that range from EHS subsidies to road construction and road maintenance subsidies. And those issues need to be covered. So what I've asked Hike to do is sort of give you a broad overview as it pertains to this year's proposed fiscal policy, some of the key elements within that, and we ought to generate a little discussion as it pertains to my concern about the three-year forecast if for no reason than three of you potentially are going to be running for re-election and have your September primary within one week of also having to consider rather significant increases in the ad valorem millage. And with that aside, I'll ask Mike to hit on the high points, and we do have a couple of speakers already. MR. SMYKOWSKI: For the record, Michael Smykowski, acting budget director. We have a twofold purpose this morning: One, we want the board to reach consensus on policy issues and budget assumptions that will be used in the development of the FY '96 budget. Two, we need to set March workshop dates for the program budgets, public input that in our individual meetings you've indicated you're interested in seeing early on in the process and also to establish line item budget workshops in June. At this point if we can get our calendars set, it helps us all out. In terms of the focus of my presentation, initially I'd like to focus on just some broad, general policy areas, program budgeting, capital budget policies, et cetera. And then I'd focus in on the three-year ad valorem report, potential impact on ad valorem taxes. And then we look for the board to give us some direction in terms of salary assumptions to use in developing the FY '96 budget. The first area I'd like to speak about is the program outcome budget. We met with the commissioners. As you're all aware, it's a modified zero based budgeting process where the starting point is a base level of service. For programs beyond the base level are pri -- organized in the program packages, prioritized. The board then ranks each of the program packages into one of the following categories: Base level of service. In our discussions you've indicated a change in what we've previously called base. At this point it's the absolute minimum service level mandated by federal or state law or judicial order necessary to protect health and safety of Collier County residents or necessary to maintain capital asset value. Previously in prior years we had local -- local laws and ordinances included in base. You have indicated a preference for seeing that separate and distinct so that you understand completely what components of the budget you have some control over. The second category is services deemed to be essential to the operation of the county. Third is services that are deemed discretionary and subject -- funding subject to available revenues and then finally the not recommended category. And based on -- if we receive that recommendation from you, not to fund something, obviously that provides the direction to staff in preparation of the line item budget. And if you say, we don't want to see that in the line item budget, you will not -- you will not see it at that point. So that early on policy direction is helpful to staff. In FY '96 we're recommending that all departments in the county administrator's agency participate. Based on our discussions, we've already got paperwork out. The departments are in the process of preparing those now. At this point I'd like the board to adopt the -- the rankings that will be utilized, base level of service, essential, discretionary, and not recommended, as the four categories into which you'll be evaluating programs. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Move to adopt the recommendations. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion to adopt the recommendations and a second. Is there further discussion on the motion? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Question for Mr. Smykowski. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Those that are required by judicial order, either federal or state law, will they be providing to your department that law? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So you will be the watchdog that I've asked you to be on that. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes indeed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have -- I have some questions on -- on this discussion. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This adopting recommendations, is that adopting the salary proposals and so forth that are in this budget policy that we're talking about? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Later on we will be discussing that, yes, and you will be adopting -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're only adopting the rankings at this point. MR. SMYKOWSKI: This is just for the definitions related to program budgets, nothing more. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We are not yet talking about the outcome portion of this. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Well, the outcome component within -- within the program process, we're looking for -- previously the county had utilized activity measures where they track the number of permits they process, but there's not necessarily a qualitative aspect to that in terms of are they meeting the customer's expectations in terms of service, turnaround time? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I just want to make sure that what -- that the motion that's on the floor is not adopting whatever version of outcome budgeting this is because it's not specifically what I had asked for, so we'll move forward. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: The motion is only to adopt the four categories of level of service. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fine. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Within the context of that, the departments are preparing a change from prior years. It's focusing on the outputs of those programs, and that is a component. MR. DORRILL: I think what you had asked me to do was to select several departments, that we would not try and do that agencywide but that we would select perhaps some -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Exactly, because it's very difficult. MR. DORRILL: -- large and some medium and some small departments and almost have a lottery type mechanism to employ a little higher outcome based budget approach that we discussed at one of your strategic planning workshops several months ago. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right. So we have a motion to adopt the classifications. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That's it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that what we're talking about? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That's all. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. A motion by Commissioner Norris and a second by Commissioner Constantine to adopt the classifications. No further discussion, I'll call it. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Next I'd like to focus on capital budget policies that are on pages 6 and 7 of the executive summary. And these are just broad, general policy issues that we utilize, many things tied to growth management, et cetera. I'll go through them quickly. Initially on an annual basis we prepare and adopt the five-year CIE consistent with the growth management plan. The annual budget will include the first year funding of projects identified in the CIE. This year what -- we're proposing a change in that the preliminary CP which would include both projects required in the growth management plan as well as non-CIE projects would be reviewed and prioritized by a capital projects review committee appointed by the county administrator. In terms of CIP funding, typically what we've done over the last few years is allocate approximately 7.6 million dollars of general fund revenue to fund capital projects and interim debt service. Interim debt services, examples of that, would be perhaps evaluating the 800 megahertz system. Obviously that is not a final decision. Another concrete example is the funding of the government parking -- parking lot expansion which was a four-year revenue bond. That's the nature of the projects that would be -- that service would be required for. Capital projects attributable to growth would be funded to the extent possible by impact fees. In accordance with the adopted road funding plan, two-thirds of the gas taxes previously allocated to road maintenance will be reallocated to roads capital, and that's the second year of a three-year transition. The board had made that previous policy decision to transition the gas taxes to road construction to fund CIE projects and then fund road maintenance, i.e., the road and bridge department, with sales tax from the general fund. And that -- implications of that policy I'll discuss a little later on in the context of the three-year ad valorem report. But obviously if that sales tax is no longer available in the general fund to fund general fund operations, it leaves a hole in the general fund. Capital projects in the CIE will be given priority for funding. Non-CIE capital projects are evaluated and approved on a case-by-case basis subject to available revenues. We administer capital projects on a total project budget basis rather than controlling at the appropriation unit. The minimum threshold for projects budgeted in capital funds is $25,000. If by mid-year we haven't awarded a construction contract, the departments typically resubmit those projects to be reevaluated for funding at the next fiscal year. And something we instituted last year that I think was helpful to our project management staff and also just in terms of limiting the number of carry-forward budget amendments that we're processing from year to year for projects that for whatever reason did not get off the ground and funds weren't encumbered, we reevaluate our project forecasts in August and then make carry-forward adjustments as part of the adopted budgets rather than doing it after the fact. The next broad policy area is in the area of self-insurance. Collier County is self-insured for worker's comp., property and casualty, and health insurance. Every two to three years we go out and solicit quotations from the -- from the private sector in order to ensure that our self-insurance program is -- remains the most cost effective option for those services. What is proposed at this point is that in the summer of '96 the county will solicit quotations for -- for all three of the self-insured programs in order to evaluate them against, you know, current market conditions in the private sector. Any changes to be recommended would become effective on 10-1-96 or the beginning of FY '97. And in speaking with Mr. Walker, we only do that every two to three years. Obviously if you're looking at quotes year after -- year in and year out and not awarding, we run into problems there. So we try to, you know, evaluate those every two to three years, and that's kind of the timing cycle for those to be evaluated again. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask you what -- what do you -- what does this mean, program funding will be based on a confidence level of 75 percent at the end of the insurance? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Well, actuarial studies are done on an annual basis to determine -- obviously being self-insured, we have to sock away funds to pay for future years' claims. The actuarials develop a -- obviously you don't want to have too much money in the bank. We're 75 percent sure that we have enough money to cover all future year claims. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a question that will be overwhelmingly unpopular with the employees, but do we look at or can we look at and perhaps the board can let me know if they think it's a good idea but look at different levels of -- higher levels of -- what's the word I want? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Deductibles. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you, deductibles. I know in the private sector right now we have the step level. We have the 200, 300, and something else. But in the private sector, I had considerably higher deductibles. And as a result, I was considerably less likely to go for small items and have them checked. But I've got to assume just by human nature, particularly if someone has children -- and I'm not saying anybody shouldn't be careful with their kids, but they're more likely to run to the emergency room or run to have something checked if they've already eaten up a 200 or $300 deductible. And I wonder if in the big picture that doesn't add up. And I'm wondering particularly -- MR. DORRILL: The answer is -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: The county had made some plan changes. MR. DORRILL: If Mr. Ochs -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Mr. Walker did discuss those when they were implemented, success that we've noted with them and whether or not there are any plans for -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just wondering if -- particularly if we're going to look in '96, '97 at potentially some big dollar increases, this is somewhere where it might be worth our time to look and see if there is a dollar to be saved with some higher deductibles and other -- MR. OCHS: Yes, Commissioner. For the record, Leo Ochs, administrative services administrator. The answer to your question is yes. We will be evaluating over the next several months both a high deductible option plan design and also working with Naples Community Hospital on a -- more of an HMO concept that they've approached us on for fiscal year '96. So both of those are being evaluated this summer, and we plan to discuss each of those with the board as we get into line item budget reviews. I may also add parenthetically that we've also completed the actuarial evaluation that Mr. Smykowski alluded to for the plan year that ended September 30 of 1994. Our claims history was very favorable in fiscal year '94 so much so that again we are working to reduce the board's current budget for health insurance premiums for fiscal year '96. MR. DORRILL: Can you also share with him a little history about recent increases in deductible, where we've -- where we've gone? I think we've got three options. The majority of the employees are in option B which is the mid-range option. MR. OCHS: Right. MR. DORRILL: Can you share a little apples to apples history in terms of where the dependent family deductibles have been? MR. OCHS: I can. I think I might ask Mr. Walker to do that because he's got a little better handle on that if you don't mind. MR. DORRILL: That's fine. MR. WALKER: Good morning. Excuse me. Fighting a cold this morning. Jeff Walker, your risk management director. You used to have a 200 deductible option, and we added two other deductible options. I would say out of the 1,250 or so employees, only about 150 of those remain in the 200 deductible option. The remainder are in the 300 or the 500. I'm looking at the numbers here, and I'm trying to total them real quickly while I talk to you. It looks like about 917 are in the medium and about 192 are in the 500 deductible option. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have that many -- I thought the sheriff pulled out. We have that many employees? MR. WALKER: Well, that includes the tax collector and the property appraisers. MR. DORRILL: The sheriff is out. The sheriff's been out for over a year now is my recollection. MR. WALKER: I've got -- it's 143 in the 200, 917 in the 300, and 192 in the 500. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not to -- not to extend this out because we're talking about budget policies, and the self-insurance program will be back to us later, but the coinsurance on our program, is -- is that 20 percent across the board, or is it spread? MR. WALKER: It is. The maximum out of pocket is different for each plan. I believe including the deductible, the medium plan is like 1,800. And the -- the high option plan I believe is like 2,500. So that increases also with the deductible that you choose. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point was just I want to see -- along your lines and moving on, I just want to see a wide ranging view and what -- what the costs and likely result is. MR. WALKER: And -- and we will be looking at that, and we will have high deductible options for you, by the way. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And when I say high, we may not necessarily go this high, but I have a friend who's CEO of one of the Fortune 400 companies. Their deductible across the board for every employee is a thousand bucks, and they have very, very low claims. I'm not sure we want to go that high. But I'd like to at least be able to compare and see what -- all the way across the board what the difference is. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I imagine their staff is paid a little more than ours too. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. And I'm not suggesting that we go to a thousand. But the point being at 200 we had huge claims, at 300 we have less, at a thousand you have almost none. Perhaps somewhere in the midst of that we can come up with a way to save money. MR. WALKER: And we will bring you those options. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And we'll be looking at this later as the year goes on. MR. WALKER: That's right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Smykowski, do you want to continue? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. Continue to the next broad area is debt service. We have some debt service policies that we currently abide by that are actually a component adopted within the text of the growth management plan where our maximum ratio of general government debt to bondable revenues is 13 percent. As I mentioned previously, there's 7.6 million dollars appropriated for capital projects on an annual basis. The county's philosophy in capital improvements has been funding the bulk of those on a pay-as-you-go basis. Obviously depending on the size and scope of a project, not all capital projects may be funded on a cash basis. The growth management plan recognizes that in the context of the general obligation debt policy. Obviously for a project obviously something like the magnitude of a jail expansion, electric would be as to referendum to -- to approve that type of project and the levy of ad valorem taxes to pay resulting debt service. And if a referendum were defeated, that would result in the lowering of a level of service standard. Finally, within debt service, capital projects that we -- in which we borrow money will limit the repayment period for the useful life of the asset and no more; just kind of a good business practice. We also use interim financing. We've used that for -- to accelerate the Golden Gate Estates Library, et catera. In instances where we -- where we do that, we propose that a repayment source should be identified and the financing source which has the lowest total cost should be employed. Occasionally, too, the finance committee may propose bond refinancings or refundings. As a general rule, the net present value savings generated through a refinancing to make them economically feasible is a minimum of 5 percent. Also as a general rule of thumb, savings generated are utilized to reduce future year's debt service. Let's talk quickly about reserve policies. Typically in each fund we budget 5 percent as a reserve for contingency for unknowns, unforeseen things that may crop up during the year. It also builds carry-forward for the following year. Exception to that, the constitutional officers have access to -- we budget the -- a contingency reserve, a large contingency reserve, in the general fund for -- that the constitutional officers have access to as they are principally general fund-funded operations. Per state statute, reserve for cash flow may be established with a maximum of 10 percent with a total fund appropriations. Privatization, obviously the past board practice has been to evaluate cost effectiveness of privatizing services versus providing those services with county employees. We feel that's -- that's a good thing to do, and we'd propose to continue doing that. Obviously that would be a joint effort through county staff individually and in conjunction with the efforts through the privatization task force. In instances like -- PSG made a proposal last night to the privatization task force about privatizing water and sewer operations within Collier County. Obviously the board -- final decisions for those type of activities would be -- would stay with the board, but it's something I think is a good practice -- business practice for us to continue to evaluate. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would it be appropriate in -- in this form to -- to state that it's our policy to encourage the county staff to bid in privatizations? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that's something that we -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that's understood that our staff would -- would bid against any effort to privatize. How do we know we have the best we can get without that? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. SHYKOWSKI: In terms of budget incentives -- that's the next kind of broad general category -- on an individual basis the county has developed the idea program, the improvement driven by employee action. And that provides a mechanism to reward employees whose improvement ideas are recommended for implementation by the quality council. In terms of departmental incentives and gain sharing, it's a good concept. I think we need to develop a track record for performance reporting. Obviously last year we kind of began the transition from activity measures to more performance-oriented type customer service, qualitative measurements of programs. We're working with our departments now in conjunction with the program outcome process to develop those and then hopefully have benchmarks compared to ourselves. In some instances already people have benchmarks against other counties or perhaps like facilities management, there's industry standards that can be utilized. On long term we see that developing as something where their gain sharing potential could exist. I think we need to develop that track record, though. Obviously we're going to go through some growing pains in determining what we are measuring, whether we're measuring the right things, and we've been scouring other counties and other jurisdictions to see what type of thing they're doing in this regard as well. So that is something that I think will continue to evolve over time. The next issue, contract agency funding, the board policy in FY '94 was to allocate $100,000 to 10 existing contract agencies. The policy for '95 was to halve that to 50,000 and for '96 to phase out funding completely for contract agencies. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In here you've -- you've described no funding for non-mandated social service agencies. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Right. Those are what are the -- has been the ten contract agencies, Project Help. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- my -- my question is, for example, David Lawrence Center does -- provides services that the county will otherwise have to provide if they're not provided by David Lawrence. I would consider that a mandated service. I want to be sure that that's -- MR. DORRILL: We treat them separately because they're the designated mental health provider, and there's one of those in each county in the state, and you're obligated to fund a certain portion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. DORRILL: In our case we fund a little more than what is -- is required. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it's mandated. And might there be others that are mandated? That's just one that I'm aware of. MR. DORRILL: You're also obligated to fund a portion of the local health unit as part of the state HRS mechanism and what we call the county health department. Again, we historically have funded at a level higher than that. Aside from David Lawrence and the local health unit, I'm not aware of any other mandated type social service agencies other than things that we do, Miss Skinner in the social service department. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I don't have a problem with this policy as long as the definition of mandated is not the same as the definition of base level of service that we adopted before, judicially or -- or legally mandated by -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: This policy was geared specifically toward the contract agencies that we had provided 100,000 to, 50,000, and board direction previously was to phase it out completely. So it was geared specifically to those agencies. Obviously at this point we're looking for board direction in that regard. If they -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My direction is -- my vote is that we evaluate what services are mandated, not necessarily judging by a legally mandated standard. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: In the -- the workshop that this board had on January 5 I believe it was, I handed out a spreadsheet of eight or nine different contract services. And the primary thing that I was interested in in going through last year's applications for contract services was who their clients are and where they come from. And what became apparent to me -- and it's not so for all of the agencies necessarily. But it became apparent that some of our agencies, if they were to cease to function -- now, whether they would or not is a different question -- but if they were to -- were to cease to function that some of the programs, i.e., witness programs and victim programs, would fall to our public health unit or our social service unit. Is that not correct, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: I think not, but I'm going to have Mr. Olliff help elaborate on that. MR. OLLIFF: I'm trying to think of all the ten different contract agencies that are out there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't have that spreadsheet with me. MR. OLLIFF: I don't either, but I believe that there are none of the services that are being provided -- because we go through an exercise where we tell you when we review their grant applications in years past whether or not there is a duplication of service with county services. So at least in that regard I can tell you that there's nothing that they're doing that their clients would then automatically come to the county for that same type of service. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. MR. OLLIFF: So there may be some claims that eventually if some problems aren't corrected that they would have experienced down the road health problems that they may eventually end up in Hartha Skinner's social services department. But that's going to be sort of a two- or three-step stretch, and I can't say that immediately if we don't fund them they will be there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And -- and I think, too, one of the things we need to look at, a couple of these contract agencies provide mental health counseling and are actually sent -- David Lawrence Center sends clients to a couple of -- of these groups. And whether that's because they can't afford the -- the scaled fee from David Lawrence or -- or what the reason for it is, I don't know. But -- but I do know that based on the contract applications that some of the social services receive their clients from the David Lawrence Center, from the court system, from the sheriff's office, and so forth. If these groups were to cease to exist, would they then become a burden through Mrs. Skinner's social service program? That's a question that's not been answered. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- and what I'd -- what I'd like to have the opportunity to do is just -- I wanted to clarify that this non-mandated social service agencies, that we as a board have the opportunity to evaluate those agencies and decide for ourselves if they're mandated, if they're essential, you know, what they are so that -- so that the decision's not made ahead of time that we're not going to even talk about it. I'd like to be able to talk about it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, on the definitions we just adopted by a 5-0 vote 30 minutes ago, they're not mandated. We can discuss essential when that time comes. I don't think that's the purpose today. We're setting policy, not talking about individual agencies. But they may be essential or may not. But according to the definitions we just adopted, they are not mandated. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the problem -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Can we save this discussion for some other time? Today we're talking about policy. We're going to have a number of opportunities to solicit the merits of this -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's just that my -- my concern is that we have a policy here saying that the board just arbitrarily will not fund non-mandated. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That is not arbitrary. We took a vote last year and decided that. We took a vote the year before and decided that. We took a vote the year before and decided that. Three times in a row we have decided the same question. It's -- it's not arbitrary at all. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have additional members on the board now. MR. OLLIFF: The one thing this board does need to decide for my sake is there is a grant application process. This policy now does not require a grant application process at all. We would not send out applications. You would not receive proposals in. And come line item budget time, you simply won't see contract agency funding as part of that budget. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That is my point. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: My point is that in the past -- and -- and I'm not disagreeing with it -- that we have taken a chunk of money and -- and divided it amongst ten, nine -- I don't know how many -- social services and just said, okay, you get a pro rata share and that's it. I'm -- my point is that perhaps that is not the best way to do it. Perhaps there really is one, maybe two of these nine or ten groups that we really should be looking at funding at some level, but I don't know what that is either. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I'll tell you what. Since -- since you have brought the discussion up, I will make a motion that we do not change the adopted board policy. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion. MR. DORRILL: You're going to have a speaker on this one particular subject too, I believe. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a speaker on this subject? MR. DORRILL: I think so. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Before I call -- call the question, why don't we hear the speaker. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Herrmann. MS. HERRMANN: Thank you very much, Mr. Dorrill. For the record, I'm Kathy Herrmann, executive director of the Shelter for Abused Women. And I did ask to speak on this topic specifically. And I don't have too much hope out there, and I'm not really here to lobby for my agency in specific but just for what I've heard to leave the door open, to get our foot in the door, not to slam it shut in our face at this time. And I have a lot of reasons for that, and I think they're good fiscal reasons, not social service reasons, not because it's the right thing to do but for fiscal reasons. Let me just tell you some of the facts of Collier County. Forty-two percent of the arrests for violent crime in Collier County are domestic violence; 1,400 arrests, domestic violence arrests. Now, that costs us something. That costs law enforcement. That costs bailiffs. That costs judges, clerks of court, probation officers, correction officers. There's a cost to that. Also one-third of the women who visit the emergency room are there for domestic violence injuries. That costs something too. Twenty-eight percent -- this comes from the public health department. Twenty-eight percent of pregnant women are beaten during pregnancy which makes that the number one cause of birth defects. We're paying for neonatal intensive care units. We're paying for special education for years and years and years. My point is that domestic violence is costing us a lot of money already, millions and millions of dollars. Over the next few weeks I'm making appointments -- and I've already met with some of these people -- with Sheriff Hunter, with judges, with the clerk of the courts, with the state's attorney to try to quantify for you how much it does cost us. Then during this long budgetary process, I would like to put forward a proposal to you talking and giving you the opportunity to invest in a program that might save us some money. We're spending $114,000 a year to spay and neuter dogs and cats. Come on. Let's spend some money to try to save money on thousands, millions and millions of dollars that domestic violence is costing. That's just my -- my particular issue representing my agency. I would like to meet with you individually and talk more about it. I will be meeting with officials from throughout the county to get some numbers for you, some dollars and cents, some hard facts. Fiscal reality is we are spending millions of dollars on domestic violence. I would like to see us do something on prevention so that we don't -- this is going to continue to increase. It's not going to go away all by itself. There are programs already out there. Lee County, Dade County are doing programs that cut domestic violence recidivism by 50 percent. Why can't we do that? It doesn't cost that much. We can do it very cost effectively. That's really what I just wanted to keep my foot in the door and open it up to you and hope you don't slam the door back in our face. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Hiss Herrmann. Commissioner Hancock, you had a comment. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Hiss Herrmann, we've had discussion on this quite a few times. MS. HERRMANN: Yes, we have. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And as I told you then -- and I just want to let the rest of the board know -- there are areas in which if a contract agency or potential contract agency provides a service that results in a real dollars savings to a constitutional officer, then that's a very simple process if that constitutional officer's supporting it, putting that line item in their budget, and it goes to that program. The concept that has been done in the past where a lump of money is granted one way or another just out of -- out of general fund, out of ad valorem is what we are trying to get away from. If there are real savings -- and you've talked today about real savings. You can point to the item and say, this is where you will spend less money. The difference in what you spend can go to us or -- do you see what I'm saying? Dollar for dollar I don't think you'll find a problem with supporting that. What we're trying to get away from is just the simple spending of money for the sake of spending of money. The last part of your argument can be used for every single contract agency. In other words, it's not that much money. You know, it goes a long way, and no one will argue with that. But we got into a situation where this board was spending $150,000 a year and not really knowing what we were getting for it. We're trying to avoid that. And I think you have approached some ways in which we can do that. But again, they're going to require the cooperation -- Hiss Skinner has to come to us and say, you know, this is something that saves me X amount of dollars that I don't have to put in there. Don Hunter has to say, this saves me. I'm willing to allocate a portion of my budget to it. If those people are willing to do that, it makes this board's decision so much easier, makes the budgetary process so much smoother. And that's -- that's the manner in which I would like to see it approached. So I don't -- I don't know if this statement precludes that, and I don't think it does. If this is there, I don't think it shuts the door for that type of approach. MS. HERRMANN: I'd like to see the door remain open because I have other arguments that I haven't addressed. For example, we've been providing the county with a full-time staff person in the clerk of the court's office for three years. We're not getting reimbursed for that. The sheriff's office is carrying around these brochures telling people to call the Shelter for Abused Women. We get 10,000 calls a year. We're getting -- you are sending people to us. David Lawrence is sending people to us. To make me now have to go to the sheriff and convince him to include yet another program in his budget when he's already -- he has other fiscal priorities. To make me go to the clerk -- the court administrator or whatever -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hiss Herrmann, we have to wrap it up. We have to wrap it up. MS. HERRMANN: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay? Commissioner Hac'Kie, you had another comment. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just my last comment is that my only reason for bringing this up was that the policy seemed to be very cut and dried. The board will not fund non-mandated social service agencies. All I'm asking is that it's not a change, as I understand it, from the previously adopted policy. I'm not suggesting that we have this hundred thousand dollar pot of money and we decide how to divide it up. I'm merely suggesting that the board have the discretion to decide what's mandated and what's not for this purpose and that the previously adopted definition of mandated not apply so that we have the opportunity to decide whether or not to fund so that we don't adopt a policy that says we cannot fund. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion on the floor, and the motion is to -- correct me, Commissioner Norris, if I've forgotten it -- to continue the policy and that we will not have a lump sum amount of money divided up or that we will not address this issue at all. Which -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the motion specifically was to not alter the present board policy. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not alter the present board policy. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Which, by the way, has been voted on three years in a row. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can somebody articulate that for me so I'll know what I'm voting on? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The policy -- MR. DORRILL: As stated, there will not be a grant in aid process this year. There will be no grant applications. There will be no evaluation. There will be no money for non-county contract social service agency line items when you see my tentative budget. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And, Commissioner Norris, that is your intention, that we have no grant in aid at all because that's what he's telling us that means? MR. DORRILL: That's -- that's the policy that's stepped down from the prior three years. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's the policy that has been set forth for the last three years. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to support the motion -- I'm going to support the motion and continue with the policy that we've set for each of the past now third year. However, I'm keeping in mind what Commissioner Hancock has said. I think -- I don't think this completely closes the door. It's a different mechanism we're looking at, and I think you have -- you and I spoke this morning, and I think some of the points you brought up are valid as far as when we talk about real dollars, and we may have a way to address that. The way the board has done it in the past is not in my mind the appropriate way, so I'm going to support the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could -- could you tell us -- tell the agencies perhaps, Mr. Dotrill, then what is the -- what will be their approach? How will they -- is it -- is it -- is their only option now to go to the sheriff and say, please put me in your budget, or go to the clerk and say, please put me in your budget? If there is not this grant in aid process, what is the process if we're not closing the door? MR. DORRILL: There would not be a process. They would not, though, be precluded from approaching a constitutional officer or another affected party, i.e., social services, and attempt to convince them that they will have an avoided cost -- and I think that's the point that Commissioner Hancock was trying to make -- is that if you can show me a relationship between the sheriff's, say, road patrol and the arrest-related activity for some type of preventive care program, I understood him to say that he would evaluate an avoided cost proposal that -- that you're otherwise going to have to fund in somebody else's budget. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I have a little bit -- MR. DORRILL: There is no policy, though, that governs that they would have to approach someone and convince them of what I would define as an avoided cost proposal to present to the commission. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess my concern with the motion as it stands and the policy that Mr. Dotrill is telling us is that -- the fact that the board will not have a policy when, in fact, the policy will be not to offer grant in aid that the other constitutional officers, the other departmental supervisors, under the jurisdiction of the BCC's budget will take that as a message to say, no, the BCC doesn't want to fund it. Don't even talk to me about it. And with that, I would hope that's a stretch, but I really think that's how it would finally go. MR. DORRILL: I think that that probably is a stretch. Let me give you an example. Let's -- let's deal with just the one element of -- of Ms. Herrmann's hotline proposal. To say that if she didn't get her 5,000 bucks this year she's not going to have a hotline, A, I don't think that's -- that's realistic. B, I think that in the event that they had to make a decision to drop the hotline proposal and if we, the community, determine that there was a need there, the most logical aspects of looking at alternatives would be the sheriff's department, David Lawrence Center, Naples Community Hospital, or some other new group or arrangement that would take it upon themselves as a community charity, if you will, to fund some type of hotline program, be it domestic violence or suicide hotline. And that's the way that I understood Commissioner Hancock's proposal is that he's not ruling these things out but that he doesn't want to see them through a county grant process that historically has gone back three plus years in terms of the policy directive that we have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand what -- what -- what Commissioner Hancock is saying, and I'm -- I'm supportive of what he's saying, but I'm not sure that the motion on the floor is going to get us where he wants to go. And -- and that's my concern. Maybe we need -- you know, we need to move on with this and see if that happens, but I've got a real concern that we're not going to get there with the current motion but anyway -- Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One last thought. Just if -- if Commissioner Norris's motion passes, would it be appropriate to propose a policy that these agencies are encouraged to apply through the appropriate -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You can come back with a motion immediately after this one's off the table. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Any further discussion? There being none, I'll call the question. We have a motion by Commissioner Norris, a second by Commissioner Constantine to support the previous board policy on non-mandated social service agencies. I'll call the question if there's no further discussion. There being none, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed? Motion passes three to two with Commissioner Mac'Kie and Matthews being in the opposition. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a motion. Surprise. I'd like -- I'd like to move that -- for the -- for the purpose of being sure that the staff doesn't get the wrong message that, in fact, we encourage the -- the kind of process that Commissioner Hancock was describing, that the board policy with regard to contract agency funding be that we encourage agencies that would -- what was the phrase you used, Mr. Dorrill? Offset or -- MR. DORRILL: That would otherwise -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Identify avoided costs. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Avoided costs, that's what I'm looking for. Agencies that can identify avoided costs meet with the appropriate staff person and either through constitutional officers or through the county manager's agency to bring those proposals forward. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second that because you can't argue the logic of it. MR. DORRILL: As long as you realize that it would be to evaluate because I cannot compel David Lawrence, the sheriff, or the local health unit to fund a portion of the various -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: But if they are our mental health provider and this particular organization provides a mental health capability that they do not, then it can become a part of their process. MR. DORRILL: I understand. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And that makes sense to me. MR. DORRILL: I understand. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a -- by Commissioner Mac'Kie, a second by Commissioner Hancock that we encourage our agencies and other departments to entertain avoided cost -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Proposals from contract agencies. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- proposals from the contract agencies. If there's no further discussion on the matter, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. All those opposed? There being -- did you vote? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I heard him. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All -- all -- motion passes five to zero. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: I think so that there not be any confusion that we'll actually have the budget office prepare a little written sentence that will otherwise go into the written budget policy so that everyone clearly understands what the intent is. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess now we move onto the three-year -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yeah, a few things first. Quickly, reaffirmation, the county uses an indirect cost allocation plan to charge non-general fund departments for services provided by the general fund, i.e., utilities does not have their own human resources or purchasing. So costs are allocated out to enterprise and special revenue funds on that basis. We use that. That is a -- a million -- million and a half dollar revenue item in the general fund. We propose to continue doing that. We've utilized that for a number of years. Also last year a payment in lieu of taxes was instituted for the utilities and solid waste divisions making a payment to the general fund. We're proposing again to utilize that mechanism as a revenue source in the general fund. With that I'll turn to the financial budget development. This year, as Mr. Dotrill indicated, he had the budget office prepare a three-year analysis of the principal ad valorem supported operating funds which are the general fund, the unincorporated area general fund, and the pollution control fund. And the purpose of that exercise was to focus on the longer-term financial conditions of the ad valorem tax-supported funds and for the board to understand the long-term implications of funding decisions you make in FY '96, i.e., through the program outcome budget process. Obviously we want you to understand the financial condition prior to making decisions on whether or not to fund items of that nature. In a broad sense on page 3 of the executive summary we talk about revenue allocations and assumptions. And these are in conjunction with previously adopted policy. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry. Where are you? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Page 3. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it 11 or 127 Three of this section? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you have the packet page, Hike? MR. SHYKOWSKI: It's 3 of the executive summary. Basically it just outlines -- at the bottom of 2, top of 3 it outlines revenue assumptions that we utilized in preparing this. Typically we collect 96 percent of ad valorem taxes. We utilize sales tax to support the general fund, road and bridge, debt service, revenue sharing for debt service, and the general fund, gas taxes. Again, we get into this a little more deeply in a few moments, but obviously a big consideration and a major component of the financial condition in the general fund was the previous board decision to reallocate gas taxes from maintenance to construction and then funding road operations with sales tax from the general fund. That was done over a three-year period. FY '96 would be the second year of that three-year transition. In FY '97 the general fund feels the full impact of that transition in that road gas taxes would all be used for capital construction as opposed to operations thereby making the road and bridge department essentially a general fund-funded operation due to the transfer of sales tax. In terms of carry-forward, obviously, too, in the ad valorem-supported funds we need an adequate fund balance on hand to support operations until ad valorem taxes are distributed typically beginning in mid November. On the expense side, the assumptions in the three-year analysis were, A, that all services currently funded would again be funded throughout that period. That obviously is a big assumption and subject to change based on your review of program budgets. Obviously there's two new commissioners on board. They may have different philosophies, et cetera, a different way of looking at things. But just in terms of general -- in order to make this analysis, we assume that items currently funded would remain funded. Enough said about that. In terms of proposed wage adjustments -- and we'll -- I'll have Mr. Ochs address that in a little bit. The proposal and the recommended budget policy at this point was a three and a half percent general wage adjustment with a 1 percent pool available for merit. Pay plan maintenance we've typically funded. What we're recommending is that we fund that through attrition. That typically only affects a certain segment of the jobs throughout the county system. And, therefore, we really don't need to be budgeting a half a percent for -- across the board for all positions when it in effect hits only a small proportion of the actual positions in our -- within the human resources; a 3 percent increase in budget operating and capital. In terms of program mandates, one thing we looked at, if we're constructing libraries or parks, we made the assumption that we're going to staff them. Staff made preliminary estimates for that three-year period of what the associated operating costs of those facilities would be. In addition, the constitutional officers prepared some information. The sheriff through his man -- does an annual manpower analysis. And his figures were based on that manpower analysis. I will -- I will caution you before we get into the -- kind of the summary of the report that there may be some expense latitude. To a certain degree the constitutional officers just made preliminary estimates of what subsidy they would require from the general fund three years from now. Obviously that was not based on a detailed budget -- line item budget analysis three years from now. there may be some latitude there. The sheriff on his man -- performs that manpower analysis on an annual basis. In prior years he has not always requested the full number of deputies that are identified in the manpower analysis. So I will caution you in that regard. Within the county manager's agency we assumed a 2 percent attrition within -- within these three funds. In terms of the summary of the overall report, there's three graphs that kind of highlight. Page 11 shows the millage history for the county general fund over the last five years, and it shows projections that based on this analysis what would come to fruition assuming all the assumptions held true here. In the general fund, for instance, it shows a 4 percent increase over the rollback rate in ad valorem taxes in FY '96, 18.6 percent over the rollback in '97 and, again, 4.8 in '98. The large spike in FY '97 is due to a -- a number -- a number of things, the principal component being, again, that transition of gas taxes from road maintenance to road construction thereby leaving a big hole in road and bridge that is funded by sales tax which would previously have funded -- was available to fund operations in the general fund. That's approximately six million dollars. So obviously by transferring that out of the general fund to road and bridge, that leaves a six million dollar hole by itself in the general fund. Other things impacting that are obviously there were some additional EMS units proposed. In addition, another main component was carry-forward revenue that we've been -- essentially been living on one-time revenue that's accumulated over time in the general fund due to additional sales tax and state revenue sharing above projections that was unanticipated. Thereby in the following year due to the large available carry-forward we've managed to avoid -- we've managed to keep taxes below the rollback millage rate. Unfortunately fund balance or cash on hand is a one-time revenue source. As that is utilized to fund operations, it can only -- a cash balance not being an ongoing revenue source cannot -- can only fund operations for a one-year period. Obviously then in the following year that leaves -- that leaves a hole as well. What you're seeing in FY '97 is kind of a decrease in available carry-forward revenue compounded by the sales tax going to road and bridge all in a one-year period. MR. DORRILL: That's -- let me just interject here. That's my one comment as it pertains to what I've called deficit spending. Not to be alarmist, but you're in effect taking savings money to meet your normal daily operating expenses. And you can really only do that once before you then get to the point to where you don't have savings anymore. It would almost be like, you know, robbing your personal savings account in order to meet your weekly spending obligations, and the focus there being to the extent that it has been practical to do that in years past, to hold down ad valorem taxes is no longer practical this year and will be nigh on impossible in fiscal year '96, '97. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In a nutshell here, unless we find six million plus -- six million is the number you mentioned from the roads -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's roads alone. Carry-forward drops roughly four, four and a half million as well. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So unless we find six to ten million dollars come a year from now's budget, we're looking at a large spike. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: That, again, was -- again, there are some -- there is some flexibility in terms of obviously if revenue turns out to be stronger, that will provide some flexibility. The expense side, you may not see all of the expenses, for instance, in the constitutional officers' budgets, the sheriff's manpower analysis, perhaps the EHS units, et cetera. But in general terms, the trend shows a spike and a problem in '97. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I just -- it's my -- it's easy for us during campaigns and during public speeches to say, gosh, we need to cut spending. It's much harder when someone is looking at you from that podium saying this is a very important thing, whether that's an EHS unit or otherwise, because virtually everything is. But in the next 12 months we've got the tough task of deciding not what's important but what are the priorities. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Another thing -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: In terms of your policy setting as well, over the -- we've gone through the program budget process over the past few years and have non -- not recommended funding for certain things. But when it came down to the final wrap-up of that process, we've always had available money to fund the programs while keeping within a millage constraint approximately at the rollback rate. This year you may be forced to look at those items -- those bag of programs, so to speak, that you've ranked discretionary, and you may be forced to make that -- from your policy setting standpoint make that tough call as to whether or not you're going to fund this program, that program. MR. DORRILL: And the -- and the reason for that is that construction would appear to be slowing down, so increases to the county's assessed value will probably be lower than they had been in previous years. And also the Save Our Homes legislation went into effect on January the 1st which eliminates any artificial windfall in additional tax revenue because of reassessed value on existing properties. And we'll no longer be able to exceed more than 3 percent on that. So it's a whole combination of things, but I think this is a very healthy discussion today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Also for the benefit of -- of Commissioner Hancock and Commissioner Hac'Kie, the shortfall in the road maintenance program that you're alluding to, this board had decided I guess in 1993, wasn't it, John, that we were going to move 1.8 million dollars a year from the -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think it was more like December of -- yeah, '93. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That we had decided to move 1.8 million dollars cumulatively a year for three years from the road maintenance program back into the construction program. And by doing that we were able to avoid our five cent gas tax being longer than ten years and the possibility of having to bond it. So there's -- there's lots of -- lots of things that have gone into this mix plus as Commissioner Constantine has pointed out, the 13 million dollars that was spent for road construction that had -- didn't have any identifiable funding source. So all of this -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Coming back to haunt us. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All of this is coming in on us now. And I guess we need some help from our budget office and -- and the county manager to see if we can find ways to mitigate the effect of -- of what -- what we thought at the time and I think are still good -- good decisions that were made. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Agreed. Neil always laughs when faced with budget -- budget issues like this when the budget office brings them forward in terms of his review because our simplistic view on things is, well, you either increase revenues or decrease expenses but, you know -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's simplistic. MR. SHYKOWSKI: But we do need long-term -- ongoing operating costs right now in the general fund are being funded with a one-time revenue source. And assuming the expenditures would continue, they would need to be funded with an ongoing revenue source. And, you know, we've implemented some things over the past few years to help in that regard, the payment in lieu of taxes from utilities, the indirect cost allocation plan. We're kind of running out of those items that we can pull out of our bag of tricks, so to speak, and to assist. And I'm -- I guess I'm cautioning the board that -- MR. DORRILL: We did that preliminarily. At the beginning of the summer I sent the board a memo saying that in effect we had been on a capital improvement spending spree and it was fine and good and last year revenues were excellent. State-shared revenues were ahead of what they had even forecast to be. Constitutional officers gave us a much higher than forecast turnback in terms of what their year-end accounts had been. And you can take those into account one time and one time only. Seldom -- and, in fact, they're just not going to happen again the following year. And so you're going to see a more aggressive approach on my part to give you a balanced budget without raising your millage because I don't think that's something that you want to do. But increasingly, what I'm telling you is that you need to take a more aggressive stance, as Mr. Constantine alluded to, when it comes to things that are either being asked to be pulled out of the general fund reserve account this year, expanded service programs that everybody and their brother is going to want as part of the tentative budget this summer, and making hard calls in advance of that to determine perhaps some things that may not necessarily need to be funded as part of your prioritization process and having a little more judicious eye towards declaring something not recommended for purposes of then going to line item budget. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we can look forward to truly being able to say, sorry, we don't have the money. You know, we've had the reserve sitting there -- MR. DORRILL: Or we're not -- we're not willing to raise property taxes in order to fund these anymore. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, agreed. MR. DORRILL: And that's sort of the -- the point of that particular -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is a terrific wake-up call. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. SHYKOWSKI: In '97, again, that showed an 18.6 percent increase given everything. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Welcome to county government. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Great year to get on the board. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That was in the analysis if you raise taxes 5 percent next year in the general fund over rollback. And a few other things, the turnbacks from the constitutional officers typically are higher than budgeted. If we assume that trend to continue and for purposes of this if in the sheriff's example if he only asked for half of the number of deputies that that analysis called for, you'd be looking at 5 percent, ten and a half, and 8 over a three-year period as opposed to 3.7 and 18. So obviously if you take some incremental action this year, it helps even out that stream a year from now. And that's something I would point out for your consideration, that, you know, we've avoided over the last three years or so. We've been below the rollback millage rate. And while that is laudable, we are also one of the fastest-growing communities in the country. We have an expansive capital projects program that contains a lot of ongoing operating costs that we are going to be forced to fund. MR. DORRILL: Hike, I think we convinced them. Let's move on to whatever other -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're scared to death. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess -- I guess, Mr. Dorrill, this, though, does kind of lean back on the gain sharing that we were talking earlier with the outcome budgeting and trying to get it -- get it in place with -- with two, three, maybe four smaller departments because in order for us to know for sure what our citizens are willing to pay for, we need them to tell us what the level of service that is -- that they're willing to pay for. We may be providing services at a level much higher than are really being consumed and people -- MR. DORRILL: Great examples of that would be EHS and parks. Wouldn't we all love to have the parks clean and the trash picked up and mowed every day? But -- but it gets back and the outcome-based budgeting gets back to value of service and what value-added extras can -- can you afford or do you want to fund. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that's -- I guess that's -- that's what the purpose is of trying to make a change in the way that we're doing -- doing the budgeting is to -- is to assess what that value is. MR. DORRILL: I agree. Hike, you want to move on and talk about -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Let me talk quickly about the HSTD. Again, we're in a similar situation. We had phase-in of the Immokalee pool and rec. center. Last year we also had a large carry-forward that kept taxes artificially low over the last couple of years. Three-year analysis points to a 6.4 increase over rollback '96; 11.2, '97; 1.2 in '98. And that second year spike is a function of once you have this large carry-forward, once you burn it down, you have the spike in terms of ad valorem replacing -- the ongoing revenue source replacing the one-time revenue source. And once carry-forward kind of equalizes to a steady state number, then you see in the third year it kind of equalizes and, you know, you're looking at 1.2 percent which is certainly a manageable type number. Pollution control shows in '96 16.2 percent over rollback. I'll caution you in terms of dollars, that's only $147,000. So percentage-wise in the pollution control fund, it's not as large a magnitude of an issue. And that's -- that's really a function of the transition from the occupational license surcharge to ad valorem taxes for the small quantity generator program. We had in the bank a hundred -- approximately $133,000 from the small quantity generator program which this year was transferred to the pollution control fund to utilize that and support the operation of that. But obviously that was, again, a one-time revenue source. Again, in '96 that 133,000 that we had in the bank is no longer available. And as a result, you have a tax increase that appears necessary. Again, in terms of where we're at here, it's also built on assumptions in terms of salaries and operating cost increases and that all programs currently funded are funded. Through the program budget process we may find something markedly different from that or choose that we can no longer afford the Cadillac service and will go to the Chevrolet service in terms of parks maintenance, whatever. In terms of salaries, the recommendation from human resources is a three and a half percent general wage adjustment with a 1 percent pool for merit. And Mr. Ochs is available here to discuss that, or collectively we'll attempt to answer any questions you have in that regard. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What's the expected CPI this year? MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we tracked the -- the CPI as it comes in monthly for the Miami standard metropolitan statistical area. The December numbers for that SMSA for CPI increase was 3.4 percent. Again, that's for December of 1994 for the Miami SMSA. That's a monthly indicator that comes in. Of course, we're trying to project the CPI for the period of October '95 through September of '96. So that's one barometer. We also checked an indices that comes in for the southeast region of the country for metropolitan areas with a population of 50,000 or greater. Again, for December that number is 3.1 CPI. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 2.17 MR. OCHS: 3.1. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 3.1. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 3.1. MR. OCHS: In addition to that, we obviously try to monitor other local public and private sector wage adjustments, contract arrangements either in the school or the city, and other private industries of comparable size, hospital, et cetera. So we'll be doing that. The difficulty with that is they all have -- several of them have different fiscal year starts than ours, so they don't always have that data available right now for us to give you. But that's the most recent statistics we have on CPI changes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have a recommendation from the board on the CPI that we would like them to build into the line item? I for one am not real comfortable with -- with three and a half and one. And -- and that's a total four and a half percent salary increase available, but I'm -- I'm interested in recommendations. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I for one think -- MR. OCHS: Commissioner -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just -- just a minute. I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When we start thinking three and a half percent as overly gratuitous, I think we're forgetting something there. In private sector three and a half percent is for the most part, you know, a yes, you can keep working here raise. I know that we're looking for ways to cut. I certainly am not looking for ways to spend. By the same token, three and a half percent, if I get three and a half percent every year for 20 years, I'm probably not a very good employee. So, you know, again, we can talk about the CPI, and I think it should be in ballpark, but that's to say, it's okay. You can hold steady. You can afford the food you had last year. Your salary's going to match everything else that went up. You don't have any increase in -- in your way of life but, you know, continue. And you know, I just think three and a half percent is -- is a minimum. And, you know, I'll entertain whatever discussion. But, again, I'm not in favor of two and a half percent or three percent. I mean, that just seems ridiculously low to me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I disagree. When I worked for the airline, we had 30,000 employees. It was certainly larger than this county. And that's private sector, and we did not count on -- as a matter of fact, there were a number of years where we had no increase. To just assume that because you show up and do the job that you should get 4 or 5 or 6 percent I think is absurd. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think I mentioned those numbers, Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just picking numbers that are larger than three and a half percent. MAybe you meant 3.6 percent. I don't know. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think I meant three and a half. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- but to assume -- and the point being you belittled three and a half percent. And I don't think we need to lock in and say that's a small amount and, boy, that's not enough and point being there is a certain value on any particular position. And while we obviously want to take care of our employees, I think that's where the merit part comes in. Those employees who are outstanding have an opportunity to make more. But to simply show up, do the job that has a particular value that has been assigned by the county manager, to assume that then you will automatically get an increase of three and a half or four percent I don't think is accurate. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I want to try to bring this to closure because we have a couple county commissioners that have appointments and -- for lunch and so forth. So, Commissioner MAc'Kie, you have a comment? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just that -- that I would support something that -- that as -- at a minimum a person who deserves not to be fired deserves to get a CPI raise and that perhaps we could give then Mr. Dotrill more discretion in the merit department. That would be my goal. MR. DORRILL: And, again, for the purposes of two new commissioners, we had something similar last year. The board did want to control merit in their particular case for only approximately the top 30 percent. So we gave -- we gave a cost of living increase to everyone, but then we only gave merit money to the top 300 of your roughly 1,000 employees. That was by and large not seen in real favorable light this year because, you know, seven out of every ten employees didn't get any merit money, and the employees have asked to evaluate some alternatives. And I said, well, I'd be happy to hear your proposal. But you need to remember that what we're trying to do is frankly reward the most outstanding employees in an effort to try and keep them here. And we're doing that in a bonus mechanism. We don't want to do that as a -- an incremental increase to their hourly wage. And I'm contemplating something similar this year because I'm presuming that that's sort of what -- what you want to do, reward the top performers. And we need to determine that we have a fair and equitable system and that we apply it fairly from one to the next division. But part of the proposal is to have 1 percent of gross payroll available for merit increases with those final decisions being made by both me on recommendation to you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And again, gain sharing may answer some of this down the road. Commissioner Norris, did you have a comment? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'm just curious as to whether we're going to set -- try to set this policy today, or are we just sort of discussing so that we can be -- MR. DORRILL: It sure helps me if you can give some tacit approval to the proposal at hand which is that tentative budgets would be prepared -- program budgets would be prepared with a three and a half percent cost of living adjustment and one percent available for merit only for those top employees to be determined by the final program. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I understood Commissioner Constantine correctly, he was, I believe, suggesting that the pool of money for increases would be directed more towards merit and less towards across the board; is that correct? Is that what you were -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It would be my preference, although that was my suggestion last year that had the 3 or 2.7 or whatever CPI was but -- and the 1 percent for merit. I don't mind that formula. I was concerned. I thought you were saying three and a half wasn't enough. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. No. What I was saying is that I don't want people going backwards. I mean, if you don't deserve cost of living, then you don't deserve the job. I mean, it's that simple. I just don't want people going backwards, and I -- I don't want to demoralize people. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. We're losing good people that way. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I could go along then with the three and a half merit and the one percent -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a question -- and I leaned over and asked Commissioner Matthews this a minute ago. Do we -- have we traditionally done CPI based on Hiami or on southeast? MR. OCHS: We've used more of a blended number. We've tried to average both of those indices to come up with a recommendation to the board. And again, we've also used the statistics that we had from other agencies in terms of actual contract settlements that may be multi-year in nature for CPI adjustments. it's been a blended rate. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It may sound nitpicking, but a couple of tenths of a point can be a lot of money when you got a payroll our size. And I'm wondering how we happened to settle on the highest number of the CPIs as opposed to a blend or the 3.1 or -- MR. OCHS: Again, I admit, Commissioner, it's a projection. The literature that we read is talking about CPI for '95 in the three to three and a half percent range. Again, our projection has to cover the period of October '95 through the following September. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a recommendation that this board consider that for purposes of -- of the priority program budgeting coming forward in March that we consider a three and a half percent COLA and a one percent merit knowing that as the CPI information develops that may very well change. So I mean, we can change it in June. And like we did last year -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you need a motion -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- we changed it in September. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you need a motion to adopt that as our policy for the time being -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, I would like a motion. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I'll be happy to make that motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like a -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a second to adopt the pay structure that I just outlined. And with no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? There being none, 5-0. MR. DORRILL: The only other thing we need from you is to give tacit approval to the workshop dates that we have proposed, and then we'll conclude this item. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hiss Filson. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What are those dates? MR. DORRILL: Hike, are those included -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: No. We need to set aside approximately -- last year about 16 hours, and then you all had talked in our individual discussions about setting aside perhaps a half a day or a day to gather public input once you've completed your rankings of the program. MR. DORRILL: Do you have some suggestions for them? You know when they're scheduled to have them turned in to you, and you know when they're going to have them in front of me. Can you give them a little help? The budgets are in March, and you need -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Right. We have meetings scheduled with the manager through like March 8. So obviously beyond that point we'd like to establish workshop dates with you all to the extent that we could be done by roughly the third week in March. At that point we'd like to have the policy direction to the departments so -- because at that point they're transitioning to -- preparing their line item budgets as a result of your ranking. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You need it finished -- you need the workshops finished by the 17th or by the 24th? MR. SHYKOWSKI: 24th is reasonable. I know last year we ended up spilling over into April which wasn't ideal. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We may want to shoot for the 17th anyway. The week of the 24th, A, I'm going to be at Leadership Florida. But B, that's our week to be in Tallahassee as well. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The week of the 24th? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 20th to the 24th in the rotation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 20th to the 24th in the rotation, so at least one and possibly two of us won't be here, so it's probably not a good week to be setting budget program -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've got no problem pressing with the week of the 13th. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't either. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That will be fine. Our first initial meeting with the manager are February 16, so obviously we'll just stagger it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We need about 20 hours during the week of the 13th you're saying? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. Last year we had 15 to 16 for the departments. I'm assuming you want roughly a half a day for public input. That's up to you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we can do -- is there any objection to doing some Friday the 10th to get started? You said you'll be done your end by the 8th? MR. SHYKOWSKI: We could certainly start then, sure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That will give us a start, break it up a little bit. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We do want to make sure on the Tuesday, February 14 we have a little Valentine time in the evening there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're talking about March. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In that case never mind. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: St. Patty's Day. MR. DORRILL: If you haven't got her something by then, you're in a world of trouble. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I haven't done it by March 14, I'm -- my dog house is getting smaller. MR. SHYKOWSKI: You'll have a whole lot of free time by then. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've got to stop chewing on shoe leather in these meetings. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't -- I presume then we want to try to shoot for beginning on March 10 scheduled out over the succeeding week. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Approximately 20 hours. Is that what we're talking about? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct. MR. DORRILL: That's subject to change once we get a little closer, and I never know what's coming up. Somebody may be in Tallahassee on committee meetings and things, but we need to give Mike an idea so he can work -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: We could also do some perhaps in the last week of March if we had to. I know last year we spilled over a few even into early April. And obviously those would just be the last submittals for line item budgets. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are we comfortable with that? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fine with me. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we -- twenty hours beginning on the 10th and extending through the following week. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And I'll just work with Sue. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Work with Sue if you would. MS. FILSON: These will begin at 9 a.m.? MR. DORRILL: Typically. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Last year we broke from twelve to one just so people -- we had appointments, et cetera. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are we -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's fine. I don't know if you want to set June workshops for line items at this point. MR. DORRILL: Let's wait till we get a little closer. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The only other issue then is in terms of attrition, the county manager's agency is proposing to use 2 percent. Within the constitutional officers, we had not budgeted attrition in the past. Our turnbacks have been higher than expected. So we can kind of get the money one way or the other, so to speak. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had inquired -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Budgeting for an additional turnback is -- well, it's somewhat risky. Over the -- the pattern over the last ten years has been that they actually materialize, so we would propose that we try to adjust the estimated turnbacks to be as close to possible to what we really think -- MR. DORRILL: And you may see my tentative budget rely more heavily on what we think the turnbacks should be. I'm not -- I'm not saying that we're allowing them to overbudget. But if we are underestimating the carry-forward that's coming in, that forces you to raise ad valorem taxes. And this year we don't have the luxury of the opportunity to raise ad valorem taxes because we don't have a good handle on what the turnbacks may be. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We want to make our decisions on the best possible information. Budget what is reality. That's the Mike McNees phrase that we've come to adopt and is not unreasonable. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had inquired of Mr. Smykowski in our private meeting on this. And if I remember correctly, the Greater Naples Civic when they first brought the idea of budgeting for attrition had suggested 3 percent, and we've only done that for 2 percent. I'm wondering if the board has any interest in adding that third percent. We haven't had any difficulty over the last -- I think we've done this for two years now. MR. SMYKOWSKI: My comment would be that this year we're proposing to fund pay plan maintenance as well which was recommended by human resource to be an additional half a percent. And rather than budgeting that universally -- MR. DORRILL: Two issues: I think if you want to go to 3 percent, we can evaluate that. The other issue is do you want to also apply that as part of the budget instructions for the other thousand employees that work for the constitutional officers? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would think that would certainly be worth looking at. We may or may not end up adopting it, but it would be worth looking at at this point. MR. DORRILL: Probably because that is sensitive I don't want to be the one that's implying that. I prefer that you take a motion on that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion that as part of the preparation of our budget we look at the third percent -- a 3 percent attrition rate as opposed to 2 which we've done for the past two years. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Then you're -- then you're recommending pay plan maintenance as a separate item or to be incorporated into that which would essentially make it three and a half percent then? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd look at that as a separate item I guess, and I'll have a question on that after this motion. MR. DORRILL: It would be separate. Does the motion apply then countywide or only for the county manager? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would hope that our constitutional officers would be willing to look at that as well. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that while Miss Gansel is furiously scribbling notes on her paper back there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion by -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: If we don't budget the attrition -- if on the other side, though, we can assume a greater turnback and a realistic turnback number. MR. DORRILL: I think they understand. MR. SHYKOWSKI: You get the same benefit. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a -- we have a motion by Commissioner Constantine and a second by Commissioner Norris to budget a 3 percent attrition. I'm going to call the question if there's no further discussion. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There's no opposition. Motion passes. The sniffle was an aye this time. Motion passes five-zero. MR. SHYKOWSKI: I have no further -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You have nothing further? MR. SHYKOWSKI: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have any public comment as we move forward in this? MR. DORRILL: You do have a public comment today if you want to handle that before you go to lunch. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But not on the budget item. MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All righty. We have some people with appointments. Do we want to take lunch, or do we want to take public comment? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You want to take lunch? We will hear the public comment when we finish the morning agenda, and so we're going to adjourn for lunch. Let's take a full hour. Will that -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That will be fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That will meet your -- okay. A full hour, so that will be 1:10. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you for your time this morning. (A lunch break was taken at this time) Item #8H3 ALLOCATION OF $39,244 TO GULF COAST BOWLING COUNCIL AND AN ALLOCATION OF $770,000 TO THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURISH COHMITTEE WITH TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDS AND ASSOCIATED CONTRACTS - APPROVED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's reconvene the board of county commission meeting for February 7. Next item on the agenda is item 8-H-3, approval of $39,000, Gulf Coast Bowling Council. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I realize I had the benefit of sitting on the TDC and hearing these presentations. However, unless you feel a need, I'll make a motion to approve the two items outlined on -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- 8-H-3. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve this allocation. Is there any discussion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. MS. GANSEL: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Opposed? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Another fine presentation, Miss Gansel. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, thank you. Let me fix this thing. Excuse me. It came off. Next item on the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: George Varnadoe is in the building. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we need to adjourn for fire alarm? MR. DORRILL: Yes, because it's going to automatically ring over to the sheriff's department. They're going to automatically call the East Naples Fire District, so we should probably recess just for a moment until we can identify -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Couldn't happen during lunch. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Recess for a few minutes. (A short break was held.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Let's reconvene after our minor fire alarm. And we continue on. Item #8H4 RECOHMENDATION TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST BIDDER, APAC-FLORIDA, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INTERSECTION OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY/SANTA BARBARA BLVD., BID #95-2315 - APPROVED COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve item 8-H-4, recommendation to award a construction contract to the lowest bidder which in this case is APAC. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? There being none, I'll call the question. Those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excellent presentation, Mr. Conrecode. Item #8H5 Moved from Item #16H9 WORK ORDER AFA-95-1 UNDER THE ANNUAL AGREEHENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES (94-2192) WITH ALFRED FRENCH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. - APPROVED IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,000 MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Tom Conrecode. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Conrecode. Next item is an item that I had removed from the consent agenda, and my questions have been answered, so I will move the item. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. There being no discussion, I'll call it. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. MR. CONRECODE: Thank you. Item #9A RESOLUTION 95-110, AUTHORIZATION FOR THE HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY OF ESCAMBIA COUNTY TO ISSUE SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS IN COOPERATION WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COLLIER AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE ESCAMBIA AUTHORITY FOR THESE PURPOSES - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item is on the county attorney's report for the Housing Finance Authority of Escambia County. MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, again, I have sort of been a conduit for agenda purposes for Mr. Pickworth and the Housing Finance Authority. He's going to make the presentation on this item. MR. PICKWORTH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Don Pickworth representing the Housing Finance Authority. This item is very similar to something that was before you, oh, two or three months ago. This is on a single-family issue. Your executive summary pretty well lays it out. We have the opportunity to gain an additional three million dollars in allocation. As I've probably told you before, the bonds you all issue are not subject to volume caps, but these type of bonds are. And that's the real game in this is getting an allocation. You can issue all the bonds you want, but getting an allocation is the -- is the trick. And on the first issue we did, we ended up getting 2.1 million, and that was only on a coin flip between that and getting nothing at all and -- because the state on a statewide basis received a tremendous number of requests in January. But as explained in there, the opportunity for an additional three million dollars has come up, and the authority met this morning and voted to do this. Obviously it's kind of a no-lose proposition. It's three more million dollars that we wouldn't otherwise have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Looking at the fiscal impact and the fact that this program does not require any contribution from the Board of County Commissioners and taking into consideration the brilliant presentation from Mr. Pickworth, I'll move the item. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve this item. There being no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none -- MR. PICKWORTH: Can I get my list out of other things? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It may not go quite that well that time. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I almost didn't second just because of the word brilliant, Don. Item #9B RESOLUTIONS 95-112, 95-113 AND 95-114, APPOINTING A LIASION FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS TO (1) THE COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, (2) THE NAPLES CITY COUNCIL AND (3) THE BIG CYPRESS BASIN BOARD - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next -- next item is 9-B under the county attorney. These are the resolutions that we talked about January 5. MR. CUYLER: Correct, Madam Chairman, and they're -- they've been handed out to you. I will note that Commissioner Hac'Kie -- I have inserted her name in the Naples City Council resolution as liaison. I've inserted Commissioner Hancock in the resolution dealing with the school board, and it's blank as to the Big Cypress Basin board. I couldn't remember who had volunteered, if anyone had, for that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I didn't think at the time that we did have a volunteer, but if the board approves of it, I wouldn't mind serving for that -- that particular capacity. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll include that in a motion to approve the resolution -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- with the assignments as just outlined. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All three resolutions. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we need three? MR. CUYLER: You can do all three of them. As a concession to you in time, you can do all three of them at one time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we have a -- we have a second; right? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yup, that was me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Constantine, a second by Commissioner Hancock to approve all three -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. Second was I'm sorry. I thought it was I was pointing. I'm sorry. Commissioner Hac'Kie seconded it, to approve all three resolutions making liaison appointments. I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, let me just quickly note one other thing for the board. I have put a comment in here, a specific part of the resolution. It indicates that this is for liaison purposes. All decisions come back to the Board of County Commissioners. That way they're not subject to the sun -- it's not subject to sunshine. You can meet at your discretion as long as decisions come back to this board. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. And I noted that there was a periodic reporting process to the board as to what's going on that's contained in there. Thank you. Item #10A RESOLUTION 95-115, APPOINTING MICHAEL MCGEE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED Next item is 10-A, appointment of EPTAB members. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Filson? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Go ahead. I'll ask later. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you have a presentation? MS. FILSON: Sue Filson for -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me, Miss Filson. I'll make a motion that we -- we follow the recommendation appointment of Michael A. McGee for the opening on EPTAB. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we have a couple of seconds. We have a motion -- motion by Commissioner Constantine, a second -- seconds by Commissioner Mac'Kie and Hancock to recommend the appointment received -- to appoint the recommendation received from EPTAB. That is Michael A. McGee. There being no further discussion, I'll call the question. All in favor say aye. Opposed? There being none -- did you vote again? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, I did. I'm sorry. It was kind of a mental vote. Used sign language. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, okay. Item #10B RESOLUTION 95-116, APPOINTING JOHN GALLAGHER, HARK DRUCKERAND HARIO LACACI TO THE PRIVATIZATION PLUS TASK FORCE - ADOPTED COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hadam Chairman, on the next item I see there's three members and three applicants. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, these are for appointments of members to the Privatization Plus Task Force. Yes, we have three applicants. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve those three applicants. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion by Commissioner Constantine, second by Commissioner Hancock to approve John F. Gallagher, Mark H. A. Drucker, and Hario Lacaci to the Privatization Plus Task Force. There being no discussion, all those in favor please say aye. That's a yes, I guess. All those opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. Item #10C PRESENTATION BY JEFFREY K. LARSON, AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION, OF ON-SITE WELLNESS PROGRAM - PROGRAM TO BE IMPLEMENTED AND EXPENDITURE IN THE AMOUNT OF $75.90 - APPROVED COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Going to be a long night. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I put this on the agenda. This was Mr. Larson from the American Heart Association. This was -- a couple of years ago we talked about having some sort of program for our employees for health purposes. There was some concern at the time about the expense involved and so on and so forth. Mr. Larson and the heart association have something that will cost the county a total, not per person, a total of $75 that I think can benefit a thousand employees. And we'll let him do a little presentation on that. MR. LARSON: Very good. Thank you, Commissioner. I appreciate it. It's nice to be here today. When I looked down through all of these items and I see all the thousands of dollars, I'm real happy to stand up here and have an expenditure of $75.90. And it is a wellness program. I've got some handouts for you. The hardback packet I need returned or I need a check from each of you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that address would be -- MR. LARSON: 501 Goodlette Road. There is, however, a red folder for each one of you. I know that you get inundated with paperwork, so I have tried to keep everything at a minimum here. The wellness program that we have is contained right here in these books, and there is a program implementation guide, and I have photocopied some of that stuff for you in the red folders. Everything that we have here, like I said, is $75.90. Everything in here is photo reproducible so that you do not have to buy brochures or anything else. If you would open your red packet here, I'd just like to point you to some things. I'm going to make this brief because I know you got a lot on your menu today. There is a quick reference guide that has everything that is contained in the kit. It starts out, there's a program coordinator's guide. And then there are five different modules, one having to do with physical activity, one for nutrition, one having to do with blood pressure, one having to do with a heart attack risk assessment, and one having to do with smoking avoidance. And if you will look at your purple page, I have color coordinated these things because I don't have page numbers. The table of contents on this sheet is what we have in the program coordinator's guide, and it just gives you an idea of what we make available for those that purchase the program. First of all is an overview. Then it talks about getting organized. There are five subpoints under there. Support of management is very important in any program, recruiting, writing a mission statement, determining the employees' needs, and assessing organizational resources. Section 3 is about planning. Anything that you are going to do has to have a good plan, and that is supplied -- all of the information is supplied in the manual, writing objectives, developing an annual program, preparing budgets, and selecting the resources and the vendors to be used. Section 4 is implementing the plan, promoting the program, conducting activities and events. And the final is evaluating the program. Any good program has to have an evaluation phase to it. If you'll look on your blue page, it talks about myths about work site health promotion programs. And I would ask you to draw your attention to the right-hand side of the page. Health promotion programs are expensive to implement. That's one of the myths. It is not expensive to implement. This program, like I said, is $75.90. Most of what the county would have to incur cost-wise is going to be probably time for maybe monthly meetings for a health program, then probably just photocopying of the materials. And we would help supply guest speakers that would be anywhere from doctors and nurses to myself, other people from the heart association, and the other non-profit agencies here in town. The second one under there, the company must hire staff with expertise in health and fitness to deliver and manage the health promotion program. That's a myth as well. You don't have to be, although the county has a health unit that certainly could provide materials and staff or help in this area and expertise. Programs are more successful if the employees have input into the program, and that's exactly what this program is designed to do is get employee input. If you'll look at the yellow page, isn't this a colorful presentation? Characteristics of successful and cost effective health promotion programs. It needs to cover all employees, visible management support, high participation, high employee satisfaction. You can read down through there yourself. We know what it takes to have a good program, and this will in synopsis form tell you. Advantages of the work site health program on the green sheet. Access to the majority of the adults, you have people that come to work every day. They have to be here. And if you incorporate that into the workday, you've got a -- you've got access to the majority of your working staff. Using existing communication channels, you've got all kinds of resources here at the county to be able to make this program work. Activities are convenient and easy to access. And the ability to monitor and teenforce, we will help you do all of those things. One of the other sections of that profile is an assessment survey from the employees. We need to know what they need to know and where they need help. For example, if you already have some sort of smoking cessation program in place and you've got 85 percent of the people that don't smoke, that's probably not an awful big priority. The program is designed so that you can make it fit into what the needs are of your employee base. You'll also see on the bright pink pages here, heart at work, health promotion annual program. This is just an example, but we can help you set it up for a whole year. Everything that is contained in these packets is reproducible. We have camera-ready artwork for all of your employee news programs that you might have. We can provide guest speakers. We think it's a good program. We think you ought to take a look at it. The final one here is selecting resources and vendors, voluntary health organizations. There are all kinds of organizations here in town that will help you with this program if we call on them: Medical and clinical groups, universities and colleges, and local departments of public health of which you have one. I would just like to say, if you would open that packet there, I think we've got living the active life. If you would just take a look at this -- and I'll be done shortly -- this is just one of the modules. There are five. We do updates yearly. The first one in here is called getting started. This just gives the program coordinator an idea of how to run the activity. We have all of the support materials in here. There are posters for them to put up. You'll see in this module there are three separate sections: Just move; this one's cute, adopt a couch potato; and then what's your FQ, and that's your physical quotation. Just to look on the inside here, like I said, we have all of the things to put up in the various areas of the buildings to let people be aware of the events, what time they are. We have all of the artwork, all of the tips and the ideas, implementation time lines, budget planning worksheets, everything you need. And we have some people already in the Collier County like Colony Cablevision that has signed up, the David Lawrence Center that has signed up to do these programs. And now we just need to get the county on board. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the timing of this is ideal. We were just talking two hours ago about how to bring down insurance costs. MR. LARSON: Exactly right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The way this program is set up is great in that it provides info, but it doesn't force it on anyone. And Jeff and I talked about it. If you have a smoker and you tell them not to smoke, then they'll say, yeah, thanks and keep smoking. However, if you provide some of that info to them, maybe they'll make that decision on their own. And I think with much of what's here either through our Turkey Tribune or through human resources or both and especially with none of the material being copyrighted, we can do with it what we will. Heart is not for profit, and they're not here looking to make a sale other than help us with our physical health itself. MR. LARSON: The $75.90 is cost recovery, cost and postage recovery. That's it. That's all we ask out of the program and then allow us to help you have a successful program. We want to make it successful. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Obviously I support any effort towards increased health and participation to the county. But what I see this program -- its success or lack of success relies on some form of coordinator, a person who's willing to get the information out, whether it be volunteer or otherwise. With 900 or 1,200, depending on which number you use, employees, Mr. Dotrill, whether it be through a subcommittee of a Q plus team or something, is there a way to pull a coordinator out without having to go out and staff a new position and go through all that rigamarole? I mean, I would hate to initiate the process and then find that we don't have anyone to coordinate it and it dies on the shelf. MR. LARSON: Could I -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not that $75 is that big of a deal, but the bottom line is, if we're going to do something, let's do it right. MR. LARSON: May I interrupt and just say something? We have a work site committee. As a matter of fact, it's chaired by Frank Mattera. And we would have a liaison for each heart at work company who would take care and be assigned just to that one company to take care of all the coordination. We want to make this easy for you because if it's not easy for you, it will not work. It doesn't matter if it's $75.90 or 75,900. We want to make it work. We want your employees to get the information, and we want it to be done with a minimal amount of effort. That's what I'm saying. If you had the time to look through here like I have, you would see they haven't missed a stroke. Everything that you need to make this program work plus the staff and volunteers of the heart association, we will make it work for you; okay? And I don't know if you would want a kit per department or one and photocopy all those things. We can -- we can do whatever you want. And we'll address the areas that are of the biggest concern to the county. I was listening to your -- your insurance person this morning. That's exactly right. Insurance costs are going to continue to rise. And there's some things you can do here, first of all, to make this fun. This does not have to be painful. And if they do it in the course of the workplace during a workday, we can turn it into a good time and get them the educational information that they need at the same time. And I'm done. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Larson. MR. LARSON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there additional questions from the board? Do I have a motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve the expenditure of $75.90 and put into place the wellness program as prescribed by the American Heart Association. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second that motion. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I was prepared to vote for this when you said it was $75. Now it's already up to 75.90. Where will this all end? MR. LARSON: It might not stop till 80. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, ten more cents. We have a motion and a second to approve this -- this project and the $75.90 expenditure. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. MR. LARSON: Thank you, Commissioners. Appreciate it. Would you like to hang on to those and look through those? And then I could pick them up from you, Commissioner Constantine, at another time. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can do that if you all want. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you want to hold on to them and look at them? MR. LARSON: Thank you very much. Item #10D THREE HONTH RENTAL LEASE AGREEHENT TO PROVIDE LIVING ACCOHMODATIONS FOR A BOARD MEMBER FROM COLLIER, LEE AND CHARLOTTE COUNTIES TO ALTERNATELY RESIDE IN TALLAHASSEE TO CONDUCT COUNTY/LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS, AT A COST TO BE SHARED EQUALLY BY THE THREE COUNTIES - APPROVED INCLUDING AUTHORIZATION FOR A RENTAL CAR CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the -- on the agenda is item 10-D. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, have there been any changes from what we initially looked at on this? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, not to my knowledge. The only question I had is that the consideration section, second paragraph says mid to late May. And when I look at the information, it says May 5, and I'm just questioning. MR. DORRILL: We've confirmed over the phone that there will be -- as part of our deposit -- as you'll recall, I put a deposit on the facility until today. There is the ability to extend it to the end of May based on the deposit that we've already given them. The only other changes, we've -- we have received some car rental or mini-lease information. It came after the agenda went to the printer. The best car-related deal that we could find that we could share again with the other three commissioners would be under Hertz. They have a mini-lease program. For three months they've quoted us a rate of $689 per month with unlimited mileage. The rate that is quoted is for a mid-sized vehicle. They have reduced amounts for intermediate and subcompacts and compacts. But we priced it at a mid-sized vehicle. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: When I originally put this together, I had looked at, since we were only going to be three blocks from the capitol building, not having a lot of need for a large car. So I had priced it at compact or even smaller. And I don't think I used Hertz. I think Hertz was one of the more expensive of the group that I called. But those prices change all the time. So I guess we still have that coming forward. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Will that come forward separately, or is that part of this? MR. DORRILL: If you can separately authorize that today, then I think we'll see what -- what is the best deal. And we'll enter into a separate agreement, and that way I won't have to bring back a separate item. Just, I mean, if we're going to rent an apartment, I have to presume you're going to need a way to get around town or out to state office buildings out on Capitol Circle and those types of things. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Grocery store. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Grocery store and things like that. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Cuyler. MR. CUYLER: The only other thing is I will assume we have a little discretion with regard to this in case it changes a little bit. I don't want to be tied to this exact document. We may need to fill in some resident names. I'm not sure what they're going to want. But as long as you approve this basic document, that will be fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: outlined by Mr. Dorrill. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Is there a motion? Move approval. Is that approval with -- Including the car issue as Okay. We have a motion and a second -- I mean we have a motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve the lease agreement and make an allowance for a car rental at the same time. I presume that's going to be eleven, twelve hundred dollars for the two-month period. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. Item #10E COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE SECURITY COMMITTEE - APPROVED WITH CHAIRMAN OF BCC OR DESIGNEE TO SERVE ON THE COMITTEE And the next item is 10-E, and this is a memorandum that I received from Mr. Stover in court security. I forwarded it to each of you on the 25th of January. Essentially they're forming a security committee, and they would -- are asking that a member of the county commission or a designee serve on the committee with them for security reasons. And I was wondering if there was anyone who wanted to participate. MR. DORRILL: My understanding is that this is primarily going to be a staff-type function. Unless one of you are dying to attend this on an ad hoc basis, we will have a representative there. If there's a particular incident or issue that needs a commission representative, I can relate that to the chairman, and we can talk about it here. Otherwise we'll -- we'll cover this unless one of you is particularly interested in this. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One way to accomplish that may be to put on here the chairman or their designates so that we don't have to change this every year and the designate would be Mr. -- Mr. Dotrill or someone else agreed upon. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I see that's what other constitutional officers have done. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have no -- no problem with that. I just wanted to bring it before the board. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd move that we -- we approve the request and our response be that the chairman or designate be the person representing the Board of County Commissioners. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a second. I want to point out that item D or person D, member of the committee, is the county administrator or designee. Is that going to give you two representatives? MR. DORRILL: I'm not intending for it to. I think that's primarily a staff level function and to meet with whoever the chief judge is over there. If it becomes a problem, I'll report that back to you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So if it becomes a problem, okay, we'll handle it then. All right. We have a motion on the floor and a second to appoint the chairman of the county commission or their designee to fill this position on the security committee. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. You moved your mouth, but you didn't say anything. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was just -- my ventriloquism there. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's just like I tell my kids. Don't respond. He's just trying to get your attention. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Anyone opposed? Anyone opposed? Motion passes five-zero. PUBLIC COHMENT - MR. AL PERKINS REGARDING FLOODING OF BELLE HEADE AREA We'll now move to the public comment. Mr. Dotrill, you said we had someone who wished to have public comment? MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Start the clock now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Perkins, we -- we limit the public comment to five minutes. MR. PERKINS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A1, please be well behaved. MR. PERKINS: I will be very well behaved today because I've got to be serious about this thing. A1 Perkins, Belle Heade Groups, Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights. Topic is the state of the Belle Heade as of today. In the 1960s the Corps of Army Engineers and the water management took permit fees from Gulf American Corporation to establish a canal and weir system in special location and special heights, the heights of the weir to provide drainage in Golden Gate Estates for future development. In the early eighties or late seventies the south blocks was placed on the CARL list. In the early nineties the Belle Heade under the protest was placed on the CARL list. The opposition to this action has been ongoing for over six years. Due to the opposition to this, the DNR, the DEP, Rookery Bay, South Florida Water Management, and the Conservancy have seen it fit to raise the heighth of the weirs four feet to backflood the Belle Heade area and flood the evacuations of Miller Boulevard Extension flooding out cattle, people, grasses, animals, food supplies, emergency vehicles, sheriff's vehicles. This flooding is deliberately to force the value of land down and force the sale of property to the state of Florida. As the water rises during the summer rains, the threat of hurricanes exist. When we get hit, when we get hit with a hurricane, there will be extensive loss of life and property damage, and property damage will be unlimited, roads under water, emergency systems out of commission. Also property owners will have legal action against the county and state as there is no property tax on water. And ingress and regress is impossible. This water backing up can affect the new university up at Alico. It's also putting an undue hardship on all the people out there. All the proper agencies have been notified. Porter Goss has been notified. Fred Dudley's been notified. They're doing a fly-over this afternoon or today about putting the weir back to where it belongs. You cannot get into the property. We're jeopardizing lives; not only that but the lawsuits are just waiting to happen. And when the lawsuits hit here, they're going to be mega. Now, it's time that this commissioners took a position that's really tough with the state of Florida water management because it's unreal. Go out there and see for yourself. This is backing up all the way through Sable Palm and to the south. You can't do anything about it. But I wanted to take and impress one thing on you. If you've ever been in a hurricane -- and we are surrounded by water on the coast and inland -- now, I'm not talking about a few drops of water. I'm talking about tons and tons and tons and thousands and thousands of gallons. When that wind starts turning around, we're going to have big problems. And those big problems are going to be loss of life. And you know how -- and especially I keep reiterating about the kids. You people can fend for yourself, but your kids can't. Marco Island, I don't know what they're going to do. They'll be wiped out entirely. There's no way to hide from this. So I hope that this commission can do something on behalf of the people out there and the taxpayers and all the rest of the people of Collier County to take and put it back the way it was. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Perkins. Did you say the water management district raised the weir? Is that what you said? MR. PERKINS: They raised the weir four feet. Now, I hope you people realize what four foot is. The water is actually running backwards through the drainage culverts and flooding to the west. When they were put in place, this was to take and drain to the east into the canals and then down to the Fakahatchee Strand -- or grade, down through the -- and it's Miller Boulevard weir number one in four foot because it's just about four to six inches underneath the road beds. And they're using the road beds as an embankment to keep the water from traveling, but it's going through the culverts that are provided there to drain that. If you step off on the high side, on the north side, you've got about that much to go before you get your feet wet. If you step off on the south side, you're going to drop over the heighth of that embankment. You're going to drop this high before you hit the water. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. PERKINS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't know what we can do with that except to possibly ask Mr. Dotrill to have our water management department look into the weir being raised and report back to us on what the effect of that is going to be. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's always been the policy of this board that any time a government entity takes action that affects the viability or usability of private property, that we have a private property rights issue that we want to protect our county residents from. So I don't think that stance has changed. And yes, I think some investigation may be warranted. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This board has taken twice since I've become a member a stand on the Belle Meade area against having it on the CARL list and so on, so I think that's consistent with what we've done. MR. DORRILL: The weir in question, though, is that the Henderson Creek weir or the weir in the main Golden Gate canal? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miller Boulevard number one weir. If you would -- if you would do that, I don't know that we need to do any more than ask you to do that. MR. DORRILL: That's fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Perkins. MR. PERKINS: Thank you. Item #12C1 ORDINANCE 95-6 A_MENDING ORDINANCE 94-26 WHICH CREATED THE COLLIER COUNTY COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISORS BY INCREASING THE MEMBERSHIP FROM NINE TO TWELVE MEMBERS - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That concludes the morning agenda. We have a single item in the afternoon agenda which is item 12-C-1. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we want to close the public hearing? I'll make a motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was going to say we have heard this one a couple of times. Mr. Dotrill, do we have any public comment on this -- on this item? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I will close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve staff recommendation expanding that from 9 to 12. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion from Commissioner Constantine and a second from Commissioner Norris to expand our Economic Advisory Council from 9 members to 12 members. And if there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. Thank you, Mr. Yonkosky. Excellent presentation. That concludes the agenda for today. We have a time certain item at 6 p.m. this evening. Item #14 DISCUSSION REGARDING ARTIFICIAL REEF PROGRAM - COMMISSIONER HANCOCK AND THE COUNTY MANAGER TO ATTEND THE SCHOOL BOARD MEETING COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a couple items under communications. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So I just want to make note that we will reconvene at -- at 6 p.m. this evening. Do you have communication items? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do not. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You said you do? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have two. One, three times now since November I've brought up the question of the artificial reef program the city is in we're in. We're providing the funding. I still don't have a report back on why the school board isn't participating. We've asked you, Mr. Dotrill, to follow up on that. Have you? And if not, why not? And more importantly, will you do that pronto because I think in the next few weeks we're entering the final phase of destruction of the school, and we want to -- if we're going to make use of it, now's the time to do it. MR. DORRILL: We -- we will probably need to meet outside of the normal process. I think the last time you asked I told you that the meeting with the school and the city and the elected and chief appointed person was imminent. The responsibility to coordinate that rests with the school board. They have not. I've had my office call them repeatedly. You may want to get the assistance of Commissioner Hancock and myself to go to a school board meeting. I can tell you the next school board meeting is Thursday night. One of the issues that I read in the newspaper they're going to have on their agenda is discussion of widespread problems in coordination on a variety of capital improvement projects. And if -- if you don't mind, I'll -- with the help of Commissioner Hancock, we'll just take it straight to the school board. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd hope so because at this point it costs them virtually nothing to do this. The city's provided a more convenient location for them to haul the debris to. We're providing the funding. All they have to do is organize it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Second item. Item #14 SCHEDULE REGARDING ATTENDING LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS IN TALLAHASSEE COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second item, do we have and can we set a schedule for Tallahassee? I understand we're going each third week. We're rotating with the other counties. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. There -- there's been an interesting we could say twist that's come to this. Commissioner Chairman John Albion and I were talking about this late last week, and he is going to be talking with his board. Since they meet on Wednesdays and we meet on Tuesdays and Charlotte meets on Tuesday that he's going to ask his board to entertain their handling Mondays and Tuesdays and for Charlotte and Collier County to handle Wednesday, Thursdays, and Fridays. That way there will be no vacant days. So I'm waiting for him to get back to me from having discussed it with his -- his board. And that's -- that's where that is now. Hopefully we'll have an agreed-upon rotation next week. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay? Item #14 UPDATE REGARADING MARCO ISLAND AIRPORT COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One other question. I'm sorry. I had a third item. Do we have an update on the Marco Island Airport? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've got that on my list. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris, was there anything that you wanted to -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, Madam Chairman. Since we have almost four hours till six clock, perhaps we could just stay in session and have some sort of a workshop? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Has a commissioner ever been backhanded, and how would you spell that? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that with the e-d or without the e-d? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I guess that was a no? Was that a no? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, actually since we have that dead time, it wouldn't be a bad idea, but we don't have a subject matter proposed. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wouldn't call it dead time, and I would suggest that maybe Commissioner Norris doesn't have any board communication; nor do I. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me give you -- give an update on the Marco Island Airport. There was a -- a proposed agreement that we have received from the DEP. It came in Thursday, and I read it over the weekend. Needless to say, as you've experienced before, it was not -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Verbal word and the written word a little different. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not quite what we were looking for. It's -- it's not too far off base. There's some discrepancy. They're willing to give us the airport, and they're not asking us to vacate, but they are asking us not to give them the 1,920 acres now. But they're asking us to maintain the 1,920 acres and maintain the road as well as provide sheriff's patrol as well as maintain the mangrove around the airport and a few other sundry items. I'm making arrangements for probably Mr. Cuyler, Mr. Dotrill, and myself and Valetie Boyd to be in Tallahassee Monday to sit at a round table and get this thing finalized. We need to do it, and I don't know where it broke down, but it did obviously. So that's where we are. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Those darn attorneys in Tallahassee is probably where it broke down. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't know. But we're going to find out. Any -- Mr. Cuyler, do you have any -- any communication items? MR. CUYLER: No, ma'am. Item #15 STAFF COHMUNICATIONS - SFWHD HEETING TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH COLLIER/LEE JOINT MEETING ON MAY 10, 1995 CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hr. Dorrill? HR. DORRILL: Just one. I wanted to confirm that we have arranged to have a joint meeting between the Board of County Commissioners and the governing board of the South Florida Water Management District. They're also proposing to maybe do that in conjunction with your next joint Lee County meeting. And the date for that is Hay the 10th and would involve the full governing board of the South Florida Water Management District. In advance of that, Ms. Boyd is also asked to bring over the new executive director of the South Florida Water Management District whose name is Pool. And she's probably going to do that during the month of March. But she has been very cooperative in arranging for that meeting. And we've got it tentatively scheduled for Hay the 10th. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's -- that's the director for the South Florida Water District as opposed to the Big Cypress Basin Board? MR. DORRILL: South Florida Water District. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I think that's a good idea. Miss Filson, did you have anything? MS. FILSON: No, I don't. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We are recessed then until 6 p.m. ***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Hancock and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: Item #16A1 RESOLUTION 95-75 RE PUBLIC PETITION OF JANUARY 3, 1995, BY DONALD L. ARNOLD AUTHORIZING FILL PLACEMENT ON THE SITE PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS - WITH STIPULATIONS See Pages Item #16A2 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR PINE RIDGE HIDE-A-WAY, PHASE III - WITH STIPULATIONS See OR Book Pages Item #16A3 - Deleted Item #16A4 RESOLUTION 95-76 AND AGREEMENT RE 100~ WAIVER OF ROAD, LIBRARY SYSTEM, PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES SYSTEM, AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES SYSTEM IMPACT FEES FOR A 3 BEDROOM HOUSE TO BE BUILT BY MINO AND SILVANA BIANCANIELLO IN GOLDEN GATE; IMPACT FEES TO BE PAID FROM AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND (191) See Pages Item #16A5a RESOLUTION 95-77 APPROVING LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40819-018; OWNER OF RECORD - MARY JOHNSON See Pages Item #16A5b RESOLUTION 95-78 APPROVING LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40727-040; OWNER OF RECORD - MAURICE E. & TINA CROTEAU See Pages Item #16A5c RESOLUTION 95-79 APPROVING LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 47620-042; OWNER OF RECORD - DAVID DELP See Pages Item #16A5d RESOLUTION 95-80 APPROVING LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40624-007; OWNER OF RECORD - BEVERLY ANN D. AQUANNI Item #16A5e See Pages RESOLUTION 95-81 APPROVING LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40705-024; OWNER OF RECORD - JAMES J. BRODERICK, ROSE MARIE BRODERICK Item #16A5f See Pages RESOLUTION 95-82 APPROVING LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40721-037; OWNER OF RECORD - PHILLIP PIERRE, HENDRICK MATTHEW See Pages Item #16A5g RESOLUTION 95-83 APPROVING LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40721-038; OWNER OF RECORD - PHILLIP PIERRE, HENDRICK MATTHEW See Pages Item #16A5h RESOLUTION 95-84 APPROVING LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40721-038; OWNER OF RECORD - RAYMOND ALAN DILORENZO, MICHAEL TRACEY, EDWARD FANTUZZI See Pages Item #16A5i RESOLUTION 95-85 APPROVING LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40721-038; OWNER OF RECORD - PHILIP CARLTON, JR. See Pages Item #16A5j RESOLUTION 95-86 APPROVING LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40721-038; OWNER OF RECORD - GEORGE H. SEIBERT AND KAREN A. SEIBERT See Pages Item #16A5k RESOLUTION 95-87 APPROVING LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40721-038; OWNER OF RECORD - JOHN J. BOYLE, ET UX See Pages Item #16A51 RESOLUTION 95-88 APPROVING LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40721-038; OWNER OF RECORD - HIHON BARON See Pages Item #16A5m RESOLUTION 95-89 APPROVING LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40721-038; OWNER OF RECORD - DANIEL CASTRO AND GISELA CASTRO See Pages Item #16A5n RESOLUTION 95-90 APPROVING LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40721-038; OWNER OF RECORD - ZBIGNIEW TOHSZAY AND DORILLA H. TOHSZAY See Pages Item #16A5o RESOLUTION 95-91 APPROVING LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COHPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40721-038; OWNER OF RECORD - HAURICE TREHBLAY See Pages Item #16A5p RESOLUTION 95-92 APPROVING LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40721-038; OWNER OF RECORD - ADOLFO PENAAND AMELIA PENA See Pages Item #16A5q RESOLUTION 95-93 APPROVING LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40721-038; OWNER OF RECORD - RONALD C. WALLIN AND ROSE MARIE WALLIN See Pages Item #16A5r RESOLUTION 95-94 APPROVING LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40721-038; OWNER OF RECORD - JOHANNA H. PRINDIVILLE See Pages Item #16A5s RESOLUTION 95-95 APPROVING LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40721-038; OWNER OF RECORD - ANN YAREHKO, ET AL See Pages Item #16A5t RESOLUTION 95-96 APPROVING LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40721-038; OWNER OF RECORD - ACHILLE FILS AND RUBY FILS See Pages Item #16A5u RESOLUTION 95-97 APPROVING LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40721-038; OWNER OF RECORD - ACHILLE FILS AND RUBY FILS See Pages Item #16A5v RESOLUTION 95-98 APPROVING LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40721-038; OWNER OF RECORD - RICK J. THOMAS See Pages Item #16A5w RESOLUTION 95-99 APPROVING LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40721-038; OWNER OF RECORD - WILLIAM P. HOOPER, ET UX See Pages Item #16A5x RESOLUTION 95-100 APPROVING LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40721-038; OWNER OF RECORD - BOBBY CLAY, TR. See Pages Item #16A5y RESOLUTION 95-101 APPROVING LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40721-038; OWNER OF RECORD - ROBERT CHISHOLM, ET UX See Pages Item #16A5z RESOLUTION 95-102 APPROVING LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40721-038; OWNER OF RECORD - JOAN A. FORTIN See Pages Item #16A6 RESOLUTION 95-103 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF MUSTANG VILLAS See Pages Item #16A7 WATER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR SEA CHASE A/K/A PALAIS SUR LAMER - WITH STIPULATIONS Item #16A8 OR Book Pages RESOLUTION 95-104 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY AND INTEGRAL DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR NAPLES INDUSTRIAL PARK, UNITS NO. 1 AND 2 See Pages Item #16A9 - Moved to Item #8A2 Item #16A10 RESOLUTION 95-105 APPROVAL OF RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF PELICAN HARSH, UNIT NINE - WITH STIPULATIONS See Pages Item #16All APPROVAL OF RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF MIRAGE Item #16A12 ACCEPTANCE OF SECURITY IN LIEU OF DEFERRED IMPACT FEES FROM CYPRESS POINT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Item #16A13 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR EL CAMINO REAL - WITH STIPULATIONS OR Book Pages Item #16B1 REPORT AND RECOHMEDATION OF S.R. 951 EXCAVATION PERMITTING AND AGREEMENT CONDITIONS FOR BOTH THE FDOT AND THE LANDOWNER Item #16C1 RESOLUTION 95-106 RE ESTABLISHING FEES FOR CREMATION SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL DEPARTMENT See Pages Item #16C2 - This item was withdrawn Item #16C3 APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT #002 TO THE COHMUNITY CARE FOR ELDERLY CONTRACT See Pages Item #16C4 RESOLUTION 95-107 RE CORRECTION OF SCRIVENERS ERROR ESTABLISHING FEES FOR LICENSING ANIMALS UNDER ONE YEAR OF AGE See Pages Item #16C5 APPROVAL OF FUNDING RELATIVE TO OPERATION/MAINTENANCE EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED AT THE SOUTH BEACH PUBLIC PARKING LOT Item #16D1 EFFLUENT AGREEMENT WITH BEACHWALK RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, INC. APPROVED See Pages Item #16D2 APPROVAL OF WATER SERVICE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN FLORIDA CITIES UTILITY COMPANY AND THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT See Pages Item #16El - This item was continued to 2/21/95 Item #16E2 AWARD BID #95-2327 TO MONTGOMERY ELEVATOR COMPANY, INC. FOR ALL ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS AT THE COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER - IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $29,100.00 Item #16E3 DECLARE PROPERTY AS SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZE A SALE OF ALL SURPLUS COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY Item #16E4 AWARD BID #94-2266 TO ORKIN PEST CONTROL FOR PEST CONTROL SERVICES AT SELECTED GOVERNMENT FACILITIES - IN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $6,000.00 Item #16E5 AWARD BID #95-2311, MARCO ISLAND SHERIFF'S DOCK RENOVATIONS, TO GARLAND & GARLAND INCORPORATED - IN THE AMOUNT OF $47,317.00 Item #16G1 - Moved to Item #8G2 Item #16G2 - This item has been deleted Item #16G3 AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT FOR THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ARTIFICAL REEF GRANT FOR THE ARTIFICIAL REEF PROGRAM OF COLLIER COUNTY See Pages Item #16H1 AWARD BID #94-2305, TO PURCHASE A JET A AIRCRAFT REFUELING TANKER, FOR USE AT THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT TO DUKES TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $76,155.00 Item #16H2 APPROVAL OF A WORK ORDER UNDER THE CURRENT ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES RELATED TO THE EHS HEDIC 10 ADDITION TO THE NORTH NAPLES FIRE STATION #42 PROJECT ON IHMOKALEE ROAD - TO BARANY, SCHHITT & WEAVER, NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.00 See Pages Item #16H3 EXECUTION OF EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AN EASEMENT LYING WITHIN LAWHETKA PLAZA PUD FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING AND MAINTAINING MASTER PUMP STATION 1.02 - EASEMENT AND ATTORNEY'S FEES IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $117,184.00 See Pages Item #16H4 AWARD BID #94-2307 FOR THE PURCHASE OF AUTOCAD AND SOFTDESK SOFTWARE TO ADVANCE SURVEYING Item #16H5 - This item was deleted Item #16H6 APPROVAL OF WORK ORDER FOR SURVEYING SERVICES BY WILSON, MILLER, BARTON AND PEEK, INC. FOR AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD (C.R. 31) BETWEEN PINE RIDGE ROAD (C.R. 896) AND VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD (C.R. 862), CIE #55 - IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,700.00 See Pages Item #16H7 APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDERS TO DATE FOR CLOSE OUT OF CONTRACT NO. 94-2196, BUILDING H, THIRD FLOOR EXPANSION - TO SURETY CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,203.96 See Pages Item #16H8 - This item has been deleted Item #16H9 - Moved to Item #8H5 Item #16H10 APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 6 TO THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH STEVENS AND LAYTON, INC. FOR THE EAST GOLDEN GATE WELLFIELD EXPANSION CONTRACT 2 PROJECT - IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,641.96 See Pages Item #16Hll APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 6 (FINAL) TO THE MASTER PUMP STATIONS 3.16 AND 3.18 PROJECT WITH CARDINAL CONTRACTORS - IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,929.88 See Pages Item #16H12 - This item has been deleted Item #16H13 AWARD BID #94-111 TO PEARTREE ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR TELECOHMUNICATIONS WIRING (COURT PLAZA III) - IN THE AMOUNT OF $54,167.37 Item #16H14 WORK ORDER UNDER THE CURRENT ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT FOR SERVICES RELATED TO PROTECTING THE RAW WATER TRANSMISSION SYSTEM FROM DAMAGE CAUSED BY HYDRAULIC SURGE WITH HOLE, HONTES & ASSOCIATES IN THE AMOUNT OF $37,304 AND BUDGET AMENDMENT See Pages Item #16J HISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Item #16J1 CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE 1992 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY 1992-168 11/08/94 1993 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY 1993-178 11/07/94 1994-109/114 1994 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY 1994 REAL PROPERTY 12/27/94 - 1/20/95 114 - 119 1/19/95 - 1/27/95 Item #16L1 RESOLUTION 95-108 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS See Pages Item #16L2 SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR PROPERTY OWNED BY SALVATORE CINA See Pages Item #16L3 SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR PROPERTY OWNED BY ELEANOR S. FIERHONTI See Pages There being no furthr business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 2:15 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Shelly Semmler